USA army HAVE used chemical weapons in Iraq

Squaddy

secret_squirrel wrote:

Off topic, totally paranoid and lacking in evidence to support your claims.

I suggest you take your delusions back to the Conspiracies forum.

I didnt make it off topic :rolleyes:

So Glad

Squaddy wrote:

They also approved Aspartame to be used in soft drinks. Aspartame is very dangerous, two spoonfuls of that can be very lethal. And it was approved in our soft drinks! (such as coke etc!) Aspartame can casue brain cancer and Ms and a load more cant think of right now. In 1983 Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle and he aprroved of this aspartame. The next time you are drinking coke think about it whats in it.
They also created AIDs, yes i know this is a bit extreme but they did! During the 70s during the race for chemical and biological weapons they tested their weapons in South Africa and look at that country now!!
They killed the cure for cancer. There has been a cure for cancer since 1924 but the guy that invented this simple little tablet as easy as making vitamin tablets was arrested and killed. There is still a practise in mexico that have a 80% success rate.
ANd whatever happened to Nikola Tesla - he created this device enabling us to have free electricity and cars that run on electricity. THats where the name 'Tesla' comes from.
They also created global warming.

Even though you have given no support to this, I wouldn't be surprised. The world in America's playground.

Exar Khun

So Glad wrote:

Even though you have given no support to this, I wouldn't be surprised. The world in America's playground.

Send this thread to the conspiraces forum. That 'Proof' video has been making the round for months now....

mloc

unfortuantely human nature leads us to conflict in some for or another at some stage or another. The world will always be fundamentally flawed and an unequal society for as long as human existance persists.

So you might as well just make the most of it. Fair play to the Americans.

Squaddy

mloc wrote:

unfortuantely human nature leads us to conflict in some for or another at some stage or another. The world will always be fundamentally flawed and an unequal society for as long as human existance persists.

So you might as well just make the most of it. Fair play to the Americans.

Nah nah. The world would be a far better place if this never happened. Is the world a better place now than when it was in the summer 2001?? I dont think so. The Iraqi and Afghanistan people will bring the war to America and there will be justice. The unborn children of Iraq and Afgahnistan will grow up hating america. Didnt we grow hating england?

Time Magazine

The economics makes me cry.

The price of oil has sky-rocketed since Iraq. If Bush is so greedy, why would he place his small oil interests over the economic climate of the economy he runs?

If Iraq started "trading in Euros" (misnomer) surely that would lower demand for the dollar, lower the price, make American exports cheaper and imports for Americans more expensive and thus fix the trade balance?

Oh no, there's something far more complex at work here; lies...

Dirk Gently

Squaddy wrote:

They also approved Aspartame to be used in soft drinks. Aspartame is very dangerous, two spoonfuls of that can be very lethal. And it was approved in our soft drinks! (such as coke etc!) Aspartame can casue brain cancer and Ms and a load more cant think of right now. In 1983 Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle and he aprroved of this aspartame.
They also created AIDs, yes i know this is a bit extreme but they did! During the 70s during the race for chemical and biological weapons they tested their weapons in South Africa and look at that country now!!
They killed the cure for cancer. There has been a cure for cancer since 1924 but the guy that invented this simple little tablet as easy as making vitamin tablets was arrested and killed. There is still a practise in mexico that have a 80% success rate.
ANd whatever happened to Nikola Tesla - he created this device enabling us to have free electricity and cars that run on electricity. THats where the name 'Tesla' comes from.
They also created global warming.

I'm starting to hate seeing your name in threads. I would have thought you would be busy in Bebo land making useless quizzes and polls after your silly attempt to get people to introduce themselves on a thread in politics earlier. A thread where you said politics is all bullsh!t but if I had to choose I would be democratic. Democratic what? democratic conservative, democratic socialist, democratic Christian, democratic just about every ideology there is by the sound of your statement.

anyway, America created global warming? :rolleyes: No doubt they are major contributors but even if America was totally run on renewables I'm sure the rest of us would still be contributing to global warming. How did they create it exactly. Granted they don't seem to be doing much about it but I don't think it was a secret ploy dreamed up the Whitehouse. It is simply a result of the entire planet releasing too many harmful gases into the atmosphere. Not an American creation, a world wide problem which we are all responsible for creating. Its a greed problem, a social attitude problem and a world wide government problem (including America, but also eveyone else).

Aids? yes there are theories that it was a man made virus created by the CIA to control the gay population, but that is only one of many theories and you shouldn't really state it as fact. The truth is nobody really knows for sure how to pin point the original aids mutation and for anyone to stand up and say, I know, this is how it happened is wrong. Scientific study has a few theories such as human - monkey sexual acts but no definitive answer. Just because we don't know the full facts at this point in time doesn't mean we have to jump on the band wagon and accept the C.I.A. theory as fact because it appears to be a full answer and not a theory which doesn't have an answer yet.

As for the soft drinks, yes it is dangerous and yes Rumsfeld and his mates have a habit of approving things which they themselves profit from but to blame America is wrong. There is nothing stopping each individual country from banning such products. Take your argument to the world food safety council. Just because its allowed in America doesn't mean they conspired to make it impossible to ban in other countries.

Again your right about the blocking of electric energy but again it is companies with a vested interest in oil (petrol) who stop these developments. There is nothing to stop other countries researching electric energy except that the oil companies might lobby politicians and argue against it. Again not an American phenomenon but rather a rival industry trying to cut out competition for their products.

Again the cancer pill, what is to stop any researcher between 1924 and now in a country other than America coming up with a cure if there is one. If what you suggest is true then surely your problem is with pharmaceutical companies who wish to sell their products to cancer patients instead of a cure which would negate the need for patients to take their products. If there is a cure please pm me the formula cos I'm gonna need it soon the amount of cigs I've gone through writing this post.

Most of what you argue is not against America but against certain big companies blocking rival products. If this was all an American ploy then what stopped other countries developing a cure for cancer and developing electric technology. This is not Americas fault, it happens the world over. Its called capitalism. Profit profit profit.


Your rant sounds like an irrational hatred for all things American and you seem easily convinced that all the worlds problems are American conspiracies. Granted I'm not a big fan of American politics but I try to stick as close as I can to facts and patterns of behavior to justify my criticism. You have made no such attempt and have simply stated a lot of unproved theories as fact.

ISAW

easy_as_easy wrote:

well yes, doesnt the geneva convention state that the use of chemical weapons is illegal?

It is illegal to use it as a weapon against ANY tartget!

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-...
The March 2005 edition of Field Artillery magazine, a U.S. Army publication,
reveals that the U.S. military did in fact use the incendiary weapon white
phosphorous in Fallujah, and not just for 'lighting' purposes, as officially
claimed.

"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."

That was AGAINST the Law!

http://http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm...
ional-wpns_prot-iii.htm

Problems with link try http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/
and click on protocol III

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.
Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful
killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great
suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or
transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a
protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully
depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial,
...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of
property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and
wantonly."

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John
8:32)

So Glad

clown bag wrote:

I'm starting to hate seeing your name in threads. I would have thought you would be busy in Bebo land making useless quizzes and polls after your silly attempt to get people to introduce themselves on a thread in politics e........................ of behavior to justify my criticism. You have made no such attempt and have simply stated a lot of unproved theories as fact.

The sad thing about America is that what the people high in office do always falls on their people. The hard working, honest people of America are controlled and hated because of them. America's name has been degraded. It was a promising land with lots to offer in terms of human happyness, think the cowboy era etc. It's a shame they have no voice bar the ones that put words in their mouths.

So Glad

ISAW wrote:

It is illegal to use it as a weapon against ANY tartget!

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-...
The March 2005 edition of Field Artillery magazine, a U.S. Army publication,
reveals that the U.S. military did in fact use the incendiary weapon white
phosphorous in Fallujah, and not just for 'lighting' purposes, as officially
claim............ement of a protected person, compelling a
protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully
depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial,
...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of
property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and
wantonly."

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John
8:32)

God, that is a beautiful post. The truth shall set you free. Think of who has been the bad guys all along? America has napalmed little innocent children in Iraq and Vietnam, women and men alike. They are the only country EVER to use a nuclear bomb on other humans. They are a voice of peace yet are the only country that ever start horrific wars for NO REASON bar their profit or to test out new weapons. America is disliked for a good reason people.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

It is illegal to use it as a weapon against ANY tartget!

it is also against the Us own regulations:

US Army and General Staff College Battle Book

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect3.htm

5-11 FIELD ARTILLERY AMMUNITION
...
(b) Projectiles
...
(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat
and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the
smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as
Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to
employ WP against personnel targets.

So Glad

ISAW wrote:

it is also against the Us own regulations:

US Army and General Staff College Battle Book

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect3.htm
(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat
and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the
smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as
Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to
employ WP against personnel targets.

Again, another important story that has been avoided by the media. This is global madness in my opinion. Maybe I'm being paranoid?

ISAW

So Glad wrote:

Again, another important story that has been avoided by the media. This is global madness in my opinion. Maybe I'm being paranoid?

Hey! I send them the copy. They dont print it. what am I to do?

So Glad

ISAW wrote:

Hey! I send them the copy. They dont print it. what am I to do?

Oh you did? Whom did you send it too?

ISAW

So Glad wrote:

Oh you did? Whom did you send it too?

dont know offhand. But I can tell you I wrote the above from the file date. On november 17 2005. I also sent it to people who did raise the issue in the public domain (and I would hope to be in the position to do so sometime soon). Would you canvass for the likes of me?

By the way the reason I dont know offhand is because I recently switched to Linux and frankly cant be bothered to reboot and search through archived emails to find out what organs it was sent to. I got it because it was posted somewhere eles on thenet so I could search in my Linux system but not know exactly who I sent it to.

So Glad

ISAW wrote:

dont know offhand. But I can tell you I wrote the above from the file date. On november 17 2005. I also sent it to people who did raise the issue in the public domain (and I would hope to be in the position to do so sometime soon). Would you canvass for the likes of me?

Well, personally, yes. Of course. I'm am what you may call a "hardliner" about these issues. But if you are reffering to news outlets and the sort I can understand your situation.

You see, when I open a paper these days, most of it's contents are fame and fortune, big brother, celebrities and snippets of news. We have no priorities regarding news. I actually read on one of those side articles tucked away into the side of the page and I was shocked as to why it was not important. It read " two die from bird flu". Ok, we have spent MONTHS blathering on about the risk of bird flu spreading to humans and it finally happens and noone cares?

Same as the war in Iraq (that is, contrary to popular belief, still raging). Everyone declares that it is the most well documented war ie. media coverage. The country was a big gladitorial ring for our viewing, they would have us believe. Only in fact certain news outlets were alloud cover what was happening let alone release it. Many journalists have had their cameras confiscated for recording the slaughtering of innocent women, childeren and men. Also, footage of illegal methods of tourture, bombings and war in general are well documented.

I just think we are really controlled by the media to believe Saddam Hussien is a satanistic war-demon but I have to think otherwise given the appalling methods carried out by the American army.

Anyways, back on topic, I would like to send these documents to places where it would attract attention. Any ideas? News stations, papers etc.

Dirk Gently

So Glad wrote:

God, that is a beautiful post. The truth shall set you free. Think of who has been the bad guys all along? America has napalmed little innocent children in Iraq and Vietnam, women and men alike. They are the only country EVER to use a nuclear bomb on other humans. They are a voice of peace yet are the only country that ever start horrific wars for NO REASON bar their profit or to test out new weapons. America is disliked for a good reason people.

Be careful to differentiate between

(A)I don't like America and they deserve to be hated by the world

(B)I don't like decisions made by certain American leaders on behalf of its citizens.

Attitude (A)
is really playing into the hands of people like in the Bush administration who can dismiss such arguments as irrational because most Americans will be wondering WTF they done wrong. Most of them are just like you and I and take offence to a statement which tars them with the same brush as their leaders actions. It just makes you look bad and your points lose credibility.
E.g. As Europeans are we responsible for Hitlers actions? Why not, he was European and so are we so we must be evil. This is illogical point of view just like it is illogical to say Americans deserve to be hated.

Attitude (B)
is more constructive and harder to dismiss as you are singling out the source of your disapproval and are not coming across as ill informed and irrational. Also helps if you put as much energy into criticising decision makers you think are wrong from other countries too. Makes you look less like you're trying to simplify the problem to "America is evil and I hate them".
E.G. the decision taken by the leaders of the U.S., Britain, Italy and Spain to send troops to Iraq despite a lack of public support in those countries and falsified intelligence was wrong. This is better than saying Americans are ***** for starting on Iraq.

Moriarty

Well it took longer than I expected for the same claims to resurface as 'fact' I must say.

Take a look at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054846746 for round one.

Manic Moran

Problems with link try http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ry/policy/int/
and click on protocol III

And which bit of that exactly was broken?

S1: Civilians were not made the object of attack. Insurgents were. Some civilians got hit unintentionally.
S2: Check. Artillery was used, not aircraft.
S3: Check. The US took measures to reduce civilian casualties. Basically announcing for some time in advance "Lads, we're about to have a bit of a war here, it is strongly recommended that you not stick around or you might get hurt." Local procedures for clearing fire remain not available to the public.
S4: Check, as not applicable.

it is also against the Us own regulations:

US Army and General Staff College Battle Book

Actually, no. The Battle Book is not a manual or regulation, it is a training aid which is not approved by the Dept of the Army or any organisation outside of Leavenworth. My guess is that someone creating the book just repeated an old wive's tale, similar to the .50 cal-on-troops prohibition that just won't die. I believe in the prior-quoted thread by Moriarity I posted the results of my search of the official US Army manuals on the issue, with negative results on any procedural prohibition on WP in the same manner as I found against nuclear or chemical agent rounds. (I had to go back a bit for those)

NTM

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

S1: Civilians were not made the object of attack. Insurgents were. Some civilians got hit unintentionally.

I remember reading quotes by the yanks that said anybody that didn't heed their calls to vacate the city before the attack would be considered a combatant

Manic Moran wrote:

The US took measures to reduce civilian casualties. Basically announcing for some time in advance "Lads, we're about to have a bit of a war here, it is strongly recommended that you not stick around or you might get hurt." Local procedures for clearing fire remain not available to the public.

That's a load of subjective rubbish.
For one, just because they called on civilians to vacate the city doesn't give them carte blanche.
Two, the Iraqi civilians have no reason to trust the Americans. The yanks have proved time and again they care little to nothing about Iraqi civilians; even preceeding the current war, going back during the sanctions the US would bomb Iraq in the so-called "no-fly zones" almost daily and protested when the UN would count the dead bodies.
A civilian in Fallajah that subsists on a daily struggle for the basics like food and water, whom also is exposed to their own propaganda, (not propaganda from your side Manic Moran.) Can hardly be expected to uproot their families and walk toward the American army now can they?
In fact, does anybody think this is actually reasonable?
The American's want to kill the rebels, so we citizens should just up and leave our homes for them.
It is not unreasonable to consider such an American tactic as part of a pyschological war against Iraq.
Ordering civilians to leave is more akin to an act of terrorism then some benevolent desire to minimize civilian casualites. After all "we don't do body counts" right?

Manic Moran

For one, just because they called on civilians to vacate the city doesn't give them carte blanche.

Carte Blanche could be B-52 carpet bombing. Where would you put the dividing line between an 'acceptable' limit? HE artillery? Mortars? Tanks? Hand grenades?

That fight in Fallujah was going to happen whether or not civilians were still around. The US could have just cordoned off the area, and gone in without giving any warning at all. In fact, from a strictly operational perspective, it would probably have been more successful. Why give the people you're trying to fight advance warning? Perhaps many of the Fallujahns didn't have the practical opportunity to leave (were camps set up for them to stay in in the meantime?), but many did. Providing the opportunity and warning for -anyone- to leave was a move which was not required.

What would you have categorised as 'reasonable' steps to have been taken before the fight was started? Or even after the fight was started? Not starting it in the first place is a non-runner: Why bother writing the Laws of Warfare if the solution is not to fight?

NTM

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

And which bit of that exactly was broken?

S1: Civilians were not made the object of attack. Insurgents were. Some civilians got hit unintentionally.

In the thread you reference you continually repeat the line that civilians were not targeted. It is illegal to target ANYONE with WP. WP is to bhe used only to illuminate the battlefield. Using it in "shake and bake operations" is NOT allowed!
It is illegal to use it as a weapon against ANY tartget!

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-...
The March edition of Field Artillery magazine, a U.S. Army publication,
reveals that the U.S. military did in fact use the incendiary weapon white
phosphorous in Fallujah, and not just for 'lighting' purposes, as officially
claimed.

"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."

Now do you accept that "shake and bake" operations actually happened i.e. WP was fired directly into or near people?

S3: Check. The US took measures to reduce civilian casualties. Basically announcing for some time in advance "Lads, we're about to have a bit of a war here, it is strongly recommended that you not stick around or you might get hurt." Local procedures for clearing fire remain not available to the public.

Sorry not acceptable. It is not allowed to fire WP at or near people whether they be civilians or soldiers! WP is only to be used as an illuminating agent!

Actually, no. The Battle Book is not a manual or regulation, it is a training aid which is not approved by the Dept of the Army or any organisation outside of Leavenworth.

Your point that it is not binding legislation does not remove the fact that that is what soldiers are trained to do and told. If they disregard what they were told then what sort of army do you have?

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

Carte Blanche could be B-52 carpet bombing. Where would you put the dividing line between an 'acceptable' limit? HE artillery? Mortars? Tanks? Hand grenades?

WP is a chemical agent to be used to illuminate the battlefield. It is not to be used to target at or near people whether those people are combatants or not!
The US occupied Iraq and claimed that there were WMD. When they found there were not wmd they claimed that they found the materials necessary to make WMD. They hadnt found them but the point is that radioactives or chemical agents are bad if Iran or Saddam had them but chemical agents are okay when the Us have them!

What would you have categorised as 'reasonable' steps to have been taken before the fight was started? Or even after the fight was started? Not starting it in the first place is a non-runner: Why bother writing the Laws of Warfare if the solution is not to fight?

this occupoied most of your earlier thread and is a red herring. WP is not to be used on people period! It does not matter if you evacuate all or none of the civilians. They "TARGETTED" WP! you cant do that!
[/QUOTE]

Manic Moran

ISAW wrote:

Your point that it is not binding legislation does not remove the fact that that is what soldiers are trained to do and told. If they disregard what they were told then what sort of army do you have?

This appears to be the founding issue of your point of contention against mine.

I assure you that the Battle Book is not an army-wide doctrine, and was created by a single Leavenworth officer as a student aid. Trust me, I'm a US Army officer. I know what is binding on me and what is not. Technical Manuals, Field Manuals and Army Regulations are all legally binding on me: All these manuals and regulations are signed "By order of Sectretary of the Army." There is no such validation in the Battle Book. I have never been to Leavenworth, I have never been instructed that WP is never to be used against personnel.

In a nutshell, one person who created a student text (Hence the designation ST in the title, as opposed to TM, FM or AR) screwed up and put something in the book which he failed to do any research on and made an erroneous assumption. If it truly was against the laws of war to use it against troops, the artillery manuals which have force of military law, if nothing else, would mention it. I have read the manuals, they are silent on the point. The Artillery School is based i Ft Sill, find me a student text from Ft Sill's school which supports the claim. Basically, your entire proof is based on "I heard someone once say that..." Not very convincing.

And WP is not, as you call it, a chemical agent. That is reserved, per the manual, for weapons which fall under the common title of 'Chemical Weapons', such as nerve agents, blister agents, and so on. As I mentioned, WP is categorised as a 'Conventional Military Chemical,' and entirely different kettle of fish.

NTM

ISAW

I could easily claim that of course the US know chemical weappons
were used in Iraq since they said Saddam used them. This happens to be true
but the WRONG or the evil acts done to civilians is what counts. People just
dont want to admit that they are as capable of doing as wrong as some "evil"
enemy they have concocted. when their actions are exposed as just as bad
then they identify with the very thing they claim to be against!


The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was
banned by the CWC and he had this to say:

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus,
the caustic
properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course
is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is
in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause
harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered
chemical weapons."

As a chemical or biological weapon for
effect you would have a better effect from Sarin or Ricin (though not as
immediate from Ricin). Over longer exposure periods for short term White
Phosphorus probably is more "harmful" than say Uranium. Of curse the WP
Sarin etc will de naturate but the Uranium will be around for millennia. As
such the men in suits who plan these "wars" even if they could, wouldn't
have WP as a chemical weapon of choice. Mind you they wouldn't use "mustard
gas" either for similar reasons. WP was not designed as a chemical weapon
and only has those properties as a side effect from the original design as a
dispersed smoke producer and flare.
So it seems to me that there will be some medium rank field officers
disciplined but it will not go higher than that. They will probably tout the
line that "some stupid commanders knew it was not banned for use and thought
they might as well make use of its "other banned" properties".

"Of course the President and administration was not aware of the use of
White Phosphorus in this fashion" isnt really an answer. Why?

1. It excuses its use.
2. It offers no apology.
3. It offers no liability.
4. The speed of denial of use indicates an attempt to deny the issue.
5. The "classification" gambit comes across as another distancing method. e.g/ they may say "it is not classified as a chemical weapon" or "civilians were not targeted". The use other than as a flare was illegal and wrong.

In the final analysis, the US military authorities have to come out of their
hidey holes with their hands up having being subjected to an international
law "shake and bake"! They dont want to expose themselves to hostile fire in
the open without the protection of duplicity and obfuscation. It detracts
from staying on message and "letting freedom ring".

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

And which bit of that exactly was broken?

the link or the treaty?

S1: Civilians were not made the object of attack. Insurgents were. Some civilians got hit unintentionally.

I was wondering what the S meant - "section 1"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_occupation_of_Fallujah
Journalists embedded with US military units, although limited in what they may report in order to protect the troops, have reported the following:

* On November 8, 2004, a force of over 6,000+\- U.S. and 1300+\- Iraqi troops began a concentrated assault on Fallujah with air strikes, artillery, armor, and infantry.

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.

Did you plainly condemn the use of white Phosphorus by US troops?
I don't recall you
condemning its use. If it was used on civilians do you condemn that?

Also, what do you think should be done about.
1. The use of WP as it was used by Us troops in Falluja?
2. The denial of its use in that place by US authorities?

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.

S2: Check. Artillery was used, not aircraft.
Above you claim civilians were not hit. here you implicitidly claim that they were but not by projectiles which came from aircraft but by projectiles which came from ground based weapons.

S3: Check. The US took measures to reduce civilian casualties. Basically announcing for some time in advance "Lads, we're about to have a bit of a war here, it is strongly recommended that you not stick around or you might get hurt." Local procedures for clearing fire remain not available to the public.

good for them but from the WIKI above:

As regard "unintentional" death, artillery and bombing is targeted into an area.
Compensation amounts to 20 percent of the value of damaged houses, with an estimated 32,000 homeowners eligible, according to Marine Lt. Col. William Brown [17]. According to the NBC [18], 9,000 homes were destroyed, thousands more were damaged and of the 32,000 compensation claims only 2,500 have been paid as of April 14, 2005. According to Mike Marqusee of Iraq Occupation Focus writing in the Guardian [19], "Falluja's compensation commissioner has reported that 36,000 of the city's 50,000 homes were destroyed, along with 60 schools and 65 mosques and shrines".

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote:

Trust me, I'm a US Army officer.

I thought you were National Guard? Maybe I misunderstood something you posted before.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

Problems with link try http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/
and click on protocol III

As regards people saying that artillery weapons and those not targeted at civilians ot at "insurgents" are okay look at the following:
Under Article II of the CWC, a
'Toxic Chemical' is defined as;

"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."

Under the same Article II,
'Chemical Weapons' are defined as;

"(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;"

WP and WP smoke or Phosphorus Pentoxide, meets
the definition of 'Toxic Chemical'. It also meets
(b) under 'Chemical Weapons' if WP or WP smoke
can be specified in subparagraph (a).

Subparagraph (a) has a condition attached:
"except where intended for purposes not prohibited
under this Convention"

The New York Tikmes - Nov 29, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/29/opinion/29tue1.html

In fact, one of the many crimes
ascribed to Saddam Hussein was dropping white phosphorus on Kurdish
rebels and civilians in 1991.

US used white phosphorus on Iraqi civilians - report
By Phil Stewart
November 8, 2005

ROME (Reuters) - U.S. forces in Iraq have used incendiary white phosphorus
against civilians and a firebomb similar to napalm against military targets,
Italian state-run broadcaster RAI reported on Tuesday.

they used it on people. the whole "civilian" argument is a sideline a red herring!
a chemical agent is not to be used against anyone whether troops insurgents or civilians.

If you want to do some homework on double standards then look up who is the
real police in Sadr City. Ask yourself why only ONE US soldier was killed
there by a human bomb. Find out who the US and the Iraqi police tell people
to go to if their car is stolen. Then ask why the leader of these people is
left roam about Sadr City. Surely that is the same way the US treated Saddam
when the devil was their friend? Maybe worse since he is a muslim fundie and
Saddam was not. Can that be "bringing freedom and democracy" or is it just a
sham? It demoralised US troops to deal with such peope but the high command
do it anyway. Wait till they return to the US and the truth behind the
"embedded" light entertainment that they pretend is news gets out.




"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John
8:32)[/QUOTE]

ISAW

http://www.peaceandjustice.it/fallujah-video.php

Look at this video and decide for yourself if the use of such tatics is acceptable:

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video.asp

Manic Moran

My nametape says US Army. My ID card says 'Army.' In addition to my state commission, I hold a federal commission. I have attended the same schools as a Regular Army officer of my rank. There is no difference in my education, authority or responsibility, particularly when it refers to what is or is not legal, since the US government is held equally culpable regardless of if an action is carried out by a full-timer or a reservist.

Did you plainly condemn the use of white Phosphorus by US troops?

Nope. Neither do I even remotely condemn the use in general of WP by US troops. Or British troops. Or Irish troops. Or any other country that has such rounds or grenades in their arsenal.

If it was used on civilians do you condemn that

If civilians were the intentional target, then yes, I would.

Also, what do you think should be done about.
1. The use of WP as it was used by Us troops in Falluja?
2. The denial of its use in that place by US authorities?

1: Nothing.
2: The idiot who made the denial (who was not a soldier) should be instructed next time to stay in his own lane and only talk about things he actually knows about. He probably saw the tone of the questions, and made a false assumption. You will note that when the Dept of the Army was asked, the response was "Yes, why? It's quite legal"

Above you claim civilians were not hit.

I never made such a claim. That would be outright fantasy. I claimed that they do not appear to have been targetted, which is a world of difference in intent.

but not by projectiles which came from aircraft but by projectiles which came from ground based weapons

Without going through the web archives, I believe the news reports were saying that the WP rounds were artillery delivered. If this is incorrect, please let me know. Certainly the US Army's own artillery branch periodical says the rounds were fired by artillery units.
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/ProfWriting/2-2AARlow.pdf (The aforementioned shake-and-bake comment, which if you will note actually references drawing out the insurgents by psychological effect, not by use of any vapour effects)


NTM