Recommended Posts
Quotethat's one of the triggering reasons why the U.S. invaded Irak in the first place
There were many reasons, and WP was 1/1000000 of those reasons. Yes chemical weapons was one of the facets, but the emphasize was put much on all the weapons he had an abundance of and used all the time. WP was just one line on a list and that was about it (used here and there, just one little notch, not a big deal).
Claiming this video is Bull b/c we went into stop Saddam from using WP is such a twisted lie. WP had very little to do w/ the whole thing.
Enrique 0
QuoteWP had very little to do w/ the whole thing.
You're right. The biggest motivator, as I recall, was that Hussein had WMD... (which were never found!
But that has been discussed many times on this forum.
... for all I know, the video I posted is fake (at least I could not tell if it's real or if it was manipulated).
billvon 3,078
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>If it's launched directly at anyone, it's going to be right on the
>heads of the bastards trying to kill us...no problem w/ that.
Again, we'd scream bloody murder if anyone did that to us.
>It's still BS to try and find any little thing to fuel ones hate for Bush,
> the govt, the military, etc. . . .
Well, it's also BS to claim that if someone objects to use of chemical weapons, or torture, or preemptive invasion, or secret prisons, that they hate Bush or the government or the military. To do so would be akin to saying that you support torture.
>but seem to not care nor have a problem w/ how those shitbags over
>there operate.
Shitbags are bad. We should not be.
>heads of the bastards trying to kill us...no problem w/ that.
Again, we'd scream bloody murder if anyone did that to us.
>It's still BS to try and find any little thing to fuel ones hate for Bush,
> the govt, the military, etc. . . .
Well, it's also BS to claim that if someone objects to use of chemical weapons, or torture, or preemptive invasion, or secret prisons, that they hate Bush or the government or the military. To do so would be akin to saying that you support torture.
>but seem to not care nor have a problem w/ how those shitbags over
>there operate.
Shitbags are bad. We should not be.
QuoteYeah it'll burn you bad where you get hit, but as a deadly weapon, not really. Yes it can F you up good, but chances of killing you soley from that, very low.
Where in the fuck do you get your information? Have you ever seen a WP casualty in person?
Quote
We made it a very big stinking deal that Saddam used chemical agents against Iraqis; his use of chemical weapons (which included white phosphorous in our reports) was one of the reasons given to invade Iraq. If there was no difference, if "dead is dead," we wouldn't care who had CBN weapons.
Calling incendiaries "chemical weapons" stretches the meaning of the phrase and introduces error by conflating two contexts (military and scientific). If it was included in US reports about Iraq, it was inappropriate there as well.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
Yes and if you were not at the direct point of the impact/explosion the burns happened to look like large scalle slag burns from your M-18 on a Demo jump.
Yes it is deadly and chances are high that the wound will be fatal.
But the marking rounds have a small burting radius compared to the HE.
It appears in the video to repeat several (2 or 3) rounds bursting, the nshows what looks like bodies that have been exposedto the elements for some time after death.
If the round was targeted at a non-combatant I would agree it is wring. If targeted as a marker and used as such I see no moral or legal issue. If used as a last ditch attempt in defense of a position about to be over run, again I see no moral or legal issues.
I think for this thread the video itself is a poor piece of evidence with out knowing its source and how much was edited.
But this is all just my opinion.
Yes it is deadly and chances are high that the wound will be fatal.
But the marking rounds have a small burting radius compared to the HE.
It appears in the video to repeat several (2 or 3) rounds bursting, the nshows what looks like bodies that have been exposedto the elements for some time after death.
If the round was targeted at a non-combatant I would agree it is wring. If targeted as a marker and used as such I see no moral or legal issue. If used as a last ditch attempt in defense of a position about to be over run, again I see no moral or legal issues.
I think for this thread the video itself is a poor piece of evidence with out knowing its source and how much was edited.
But this is all just my opinion.
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
ReBirth 0
QuoteNot at all. I was just commenting on the fact that some people get so up in arms about the smallest possilbility that the US may have killed someone w/ WP, but they don't give two shits about all the horrible stuff those fuckers over there do. If that's not the case w/ the original poster or anyone in this thread, sorry I made the incorrect assumption. But those people do exist widely, and many are on these forums.
You did make the incorrect assumption, specifically about people like that existing widely and on this forum. On this forum we tend to discuss issues that are in contention. It's pretty much universally agreed and understood that the fuckers over there doing their shit bag thing, killing innocent people and beheading journalist is wrong. We don't generally discuss it because no one disagrees that it's wrong.
However, there seems to be a lot of people who disagree that when American fuckers torture people, or kill innocent people, that they should be called out on that. Defenders of American fuckers exist widely, and many are on these forums.
It's wrong when "they" do it. It's wrong when "we" do it. But I hear a lot of people defending when "we" do it by saying it's ok since "they" do it. I haven't seen anyone defending when "they" do it.
QuoteAgain, we'd scream bloody murder if anyone did that to us.
In the context that WP has been used by the US, no we wouldn't. We're not just running around corners pumping WP Bombs into people homes.
QuoteWell, it's also BS to claim that if someone objects to use of chemical weapons...
I have no problems w/ that. I object to chemical weapon use. But just like someone else said, stretching incendiary into chemical is just that, a stretch. Trying to use a far fetched stretch as a reason to call the US military "as bad as they are" is complete bullshit. That's what I was saying. If a US soldier blatantly slices off some kids head or burns some guy alive, then hell yeah people should be pissed and hold the soldier accountable.
Those guys are bad, we're not...at least 99.5% of us.
Like Matt said, I'm talking about raining WP from a lumination round or something like that. Some falls on you, yeah it'll F you up, like I said. But unless you just get hit brunt on w/ the explosion right there, it probably won't kill you. Now has that happened, yeah. But that's not what we're doing over there. We're not just launching WP rounds left and right directly to impact on a bunch of guys.
Enrique 0
QuoteThose guys are bad, we're not...at least 99.5% of us.
((( I hope I can say this right...)))
I agree with you: not all US soldiers are bad, but there are some that cross the line (including commanding officers and even your Commander in Chief), just like not all Irakies are bad but there are some that cross the line (like the ones portrayed in the pics that someone posted earlier and their Dictator).
QuoteAmerican fuckers torture people, or kill innocent people, that they should be called out on that.
Yeah, and how many American military personnel have tortured or directly and purposely killed innocent people in Iraq? Bet I can count that number on my hands. And for any piece of shit in the US military who does pull that, hell yeah they should be called out and punished.
QuoteDefenders of American fuckers exist widely, and many are on these forums.
How many posts on this forum have blatantly said that they are totally fine with American soldiers torturing and killing innocent people? Tell me.
billvon 3,078
>In the context that WP has been used by the US, no we wouldn't.
We DID! We used Saddam's use of WP as one reason he was a chemical-weapon-using inhuman monster. Had anyone claimed in Feb 03 that WP was not a chemical weapon, the responses on here would have included something like "let's see your family get incinerated by one of Saddam's WP bombs! See if you defend him then."
We are in the unenviable situation of saying "do what we say, not what we do." The new Iraqi government is abducting and torturing Sunnis, and I fear they have learned that from us. There is no pride in (potentially) training the next generation of Saddam Husseins in the use of torture and chemical weapons. We should stop doing that.
We DID! We used Saddam's use of WP as one reason he was a chemical-weapon-using inhuman monster. Had anyone claimed in Feb 03 that WP was not a chemical weapon, the responses on here would have included something like "let's see your family get incinerated by one of Saddam's WP bombs! See if you defend him then."
We are in the unenviable situation of saying "do what we say, not what we do." The new Iraqi government is abducting and torturing Sunnis, and I fear they have learned that from us. There is no pride in (potentially) training the next generation of Saddam Husseins in the use of torture and chemical weapons. We should stop doing that.
Yeah a few may have gone to far, but did they go so far as to purposely kill innocent people and/or torture them? I'd like to know that stat. And secondly, how as Bush crossed the line? (he can't b/c he's not even over there). Unless you're just saying he crossed the line w/ policy, but that's not the discussion at hand.
ReBirth 0
QuoteHow many posts on this forum have blatantly said that they are totally fine with American soldiers torturing and killing innocent people? Tell me.
Quite a lot. In fact, 24% of DZcom respondents support using torture.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1930533#1930533
Enrique 0
QuoteUnless you're just saying he crossed the line w/ policy, but that's not the discussion at hand.
I did mean w/policy, and I agree it is not the discussion at hand. However, I also understand that someone with higher authority than a soldier must give the order to use a specific kind of weapon in a specific situation. Right? Thus, policy does affect the actions taken by soldiers.
billvon 3,078
>Yeah, and how many American military personnel have tortured or
> directly and purposely killed innocent people in Iraq? Bet I can count
> that number on my hands.
You'd lose that bet. 17 soldiers were removed from duty for abusing or killing inmates even before Taguba's report was published. Since then about a dozen more have been disciplined. That does NOT count the contractors who have been named in torture trials; no one knows what to do about them. They are essentially immune from prosecution.
>How many posts on this forum have blatantly said that they are
> totally fine with American soldiers torturing and killing innocent
> people? Tell me.
At least three; I listed em a while back.
Edited to add:
There have been a lot of conversations about "why are so many soldiers torturing people? Are people telling them to do it, or are they just bad apples?" I think the following exhange today between Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace says a lot about where the "it's OK to torture" philosophy is coming from:
----------------------------
When UPI's Pam Hess asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld replied that "obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility" other than to voice disapproval.
But Pace had a different view. "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it," the general said.
Rumsfeld interjected: "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."
But Pace meant what he said. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," he said, firmly.
> directly and purposely killed innocent people in Iraq? Bet I can count
> that number on my hands.
You'd lose that bet. 17 soldiers were removed from duty for abusing or killing inmates even before Taguba's report was published. Since then about a dozen more have been disciplined. That does NOT count the contractors who have been named in torture trials; no one knows what to do about them. They are essentially immune from prosecution.
>How many posts on this forum have blatantly said that they are
> totally fine with American soldiers torturing and killing innocent
> people? Tell me.
At least three; I listed em a while back.
Edited to add:
There have been a lot of conversations about "why are so many soldiers torturing people? Are people telling them to do it, or are they just bad apples?" I think the following exhange today between Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace says a lot about where the "it's OK to torture" philosophy is coming from:
----------------------------
When UPI's Pam Hess asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld replied that "obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility" other than to voice disapproval.
But Pace had a different view. "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it," the general said.
Rumsfeld interjected: "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."
But Pace meant what he said. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," he said, firmly.
I went to the bother of digging up the Chemical Weapons Convention, and near the top there's the definitions section, which goes like this
It's pretty clear to me at least that WP is not employed as a toxic chemical. It most definitely is a chemical like most of the substances in the universe, and like all chemicals you can engineer a circumstance in which it will be toxic. But the mechanism of action in the weapon is the release of heat energy, not direct chemical reactions with victims.
If WP and other chemical reactions that hurt people were illegal I suppose we'd have to get rid of conventional bombs as well...with maybe a small exception for fragmentation bombs. After all it is a chemical reaction that changes the explosive from solid into gas...
Quote
ARTICLE II
DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA
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.)
It's pretty clear to me at least that WP is not employed as a toxic chemical. It most definitely is a chemical like most of the substances in the universe, and like all chemicals you can engineer a circumstance in which it will be toxic. But the mechanism of action in the weapon is the release of heat energy, not direct chemical reactions with victims.
If WP and other chemical reactions that hurt people were illegal I suppose we'd have to get rid of conventional bombs as well...with maybe a small exception for fragmentation bombs. After all it is a chemical reaction that changes the explosive from solid into gas...
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
QuoteHow many posts on this forum have blatantly said that they are totally fine with American soldiers torturing and killing innocent people?
Uh, this wasn't a question about extraordinary rendition, it was about people supporting American military torture of innocent people.
And by the way extraordinary rendition (as pertaining to that poll) is the CIA's use of foreign govts to extract info out of people who we did not just grab off the street, but KNOW that they KNOW something we need. Those guys are pieces of shit and I don't see a problem with some Pakistanis twisting their arms a bit.
QuoteBut unless you just get hit brunt on w/ the explosion right there, it probably won't kill you.
Dude, white phosphorus isn't like sparks from a DZ bonfire: it's some seriously deadly shit. The damage a white phosphorus arty round can do to structures and equipment alone is more than telling, and that's not even getting into the smoke, which is particularly damaging in an urban environment (think enclosed rooms). Take a drag off an M8 canister then compare with that of WP and tell me what you think.
Whereever you're getting the information that "it probably won't kill you," is probably still steaming with ass.
QuoteWe're not just launching WP rounds left and right directly to impact on a bunch of guys.
Statements to the press have implied that white phosphorus is being deployed as an incendiary weapon in an anti-personnel capacity. It is that use with which I strongly disagree. Again, spirit vs. letter of the law.
Fair enough. However, WP is not like some thing you see out of Indiana Jones that just eats your flesh to the bone all over your entire body (as several of the bodies in that video were). Yeah it'll burn you bad where you get hit, but as a deadly weapon, not really. Yes it can F you up good, but chances of killing you soley from that, very low. Also, we do not just launch WP onto people randomly. If it's launched directly at anyone, it's going to be right on the heads of the bastards trying to kill us...no problem w/ that. And fair's fair, they can try it if they want.
I disagree too. That's not what I was saying. It's still BS to try and find any little thing to fuel ones hate for Bush, the govt, the military, etc. but seem to not care nor have a problem w/ how those shitbags over there operate.
Basically, a lot what JKM said.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites