Although the coalition went into Iraq under the sole pretence of finding WMD it was quite apparent none would be. The PR machine then went to work and began to spin the invasion as humanitarian, a lot of reference being made to the Kurd gassing incident of 1988 (which is a suspect claim: http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html ). Well I would like to say the use of chemical weapons by US troops came as a suprise, but I think it is just another part of a cavalcade of errors,, lies and civilian casualties that is the Iraq war..
I've been waiting for this to come up - since when is White Phosporous a chemical weapon under any treaty?
he latest evidence that George Bush is a war criminal has apparently come this week with the acknowledgment that the US military used white phosphorus (WP) on enemy positions in Fallujah. This is deemed an outrage, something decent countries never do, yet more proof that the Bush-Cheney cabal is sedulously destroying the very foundations of American civilisation.
The discovery that American soldiers refer to WP cavalierly as ?shake and bake? seems to have come as an additional shock to the easily agitated sensibilities of the critics. Can you believe men can be so callous as to refer to something so horrible in such a jocular fashion? They must be Nazis.
In fact, WP is not a chemical weapon, not even banned by any treaty to which the US is signatory. It has been used by the armed forces in all countries in wars for decades. Indeed, if you look up the roll of US Congressional Medal of Honour winners, you will discover that quite a few received this highest military decoration precisely because they used ?shake and bake? to such successful effect.
The weapon?s purpose is to create a smokescreen that flushes the enemy out of foxholes, so that the attacker can get a better chance of shooting them or blowing them up with high explosives. I wait with resigned anticipation for the reports of shocking new evidence that the US has used ?bullets? and ?bombs? in its attacks on the enemy.
And see also:
Yeah, this white phosphorus outcry is ridiculous. They had an article in my university paper about it this week. More people talking about something they know nothing about to score points.
Why do you think the use of WP was a mistake or an error? Do you know what it does and how it works? What it's proper application is? Ever fired any in combat? If so tell us more.
Why do you state that WMD's are the sole reason the US invaded Iraq when you know that is a blatant lie and have criticized many of the other reason already given?
Yeah. All the people they show that were burned were either insurgents or sympathisers. At that point it gets hard to feel sorry for them b/c they had every oppurtunity to leave.
You're half right. WMD's were the sole reason given BEFORE the war. Since this fiasco started and no weapons were found, there's been a shitload of reasons. None of which good enough to lose one 19-year-old American over.
Lmao, if you come into contact with white phosphorus it can...BURN YOUR SKIN?! Those monsters!
Sole reason. Hardly. You need to get out of the cave more often. Do a google. Lot's of reasons were given.
Hey John....nice articles I was following this also...but I think you spell it "Hypocrisy"
The lunatic left is really reaching with this one.
I think they water down any valid points they may have when they pull out bullshit like this.
Well apparantly Iran is a lot bigger and badder than Iraq and they really ARE wel l on the way to making nukes which even their ally russia has accused them of doing. Despite all the other reasons thrown around it exhausts our milatary to go into one useless and wasteful conflict( iraq) when there is a real one that needs to be had a short time later
Being as there isn't a whole lot of direct, WW II style combat going on, I don't think this is so much of an issue. I hate to take shit away from the troops that might save their lives. They are just over, trying to survive, and I really wouldn't disarm them too much.
Like I said, I got buddies there, and honestly, if it comes down to my buddy coming home or an Iraqi getting white phosphurus on his face....well, I don't know that iraqi too well.
Maybe things have changed, but back in the 70's Willie Pete was forbidden as an anti-personel munition. But torture was frowned on back then also.
Actually, according to FM 27-10 Law of Land Warfare, Chapter 2 (hostilities), para 36 (weapons emplying fire)
"The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law. They should not, however, be employed in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering to individuals."
From what I have read, the enemy was in hardened positions and the use of WP would make perfect sense. Much more sense than a frontal assault.
This really isnt covered as a chemical under Law of Land Warfare as chemicals are defined as "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices".
You're wholly wrong. Go read the Senate Resolution - there are over 20 counts.
"Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in
material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the Presidentto take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 andconstitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to
work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and towork for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled..."
WMDs were privileged as a top priority above all others, I agree - but to suggest that no other reasons were promoted is nonsense.
On what thunderbolt23 wrote:
HOLY SHIT - I had no idea how much shit we were wrong about!
My personal views on this war aside, it is still a war.
Do you know that a bullet can enter a shoulder and come out a knee cap?
A mine or a grenade can blow off parts of a person and that person can still be alive under the right circumstances.
If the media nit-picks over every method that is used to win every battle, and actually was able to make some changes to how we conduct battle, there would be even more casualties on our side and the war would take a whole lot longer.
War is terrible for either side in it.
Really, that's the best you could come up with? Take your time. Read it again. Research it. Refute it. Go ahead, we'll all wait.
White phophorus in approved for creating smokescreens and blowing things up. As an incendiary device, I don't think that it is legal to use it against people, regardless of whether they are soldiers or civilians.