USA army HAVE used chemical weapons in Iraq

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

Trust me, I'm a US Army officer.

Let us say I believe you are an officer. You then offer an oxymoron. why should i trust you are correct? It is only argument from authority isn't it? Would this be the same army where senior officers denied the use of WP as a weapon? Would it be the same Army who stated they were certian of WMD in Iraq? The same officers who stated that Mai Lai didn't happen? Where the only officer to eventually be disicplined by them when they admitted it DID happen over a year later, is now a judge in the US? the Same US military who have been involved in about a hundred military incursions into other soverign states (excluding WWI and WWII) some entirely for trade and economic interests? You ask me to trust you because you know what the US military are doing? If you are still serving you are bound but military law. You couldnt blow the whistle even if you did see transgression nor would a serving member be likely to "rat out" his mates. How is it then that several retiring generals have been extremly critical of the current administration?

US troops used WP as a weapon in falluja. SDo you accept that? They fired it into places where there were people. do you accept that? When challenged on it their authorities denied using it. Do you accept that?

Do you condone the use of WP against people whether civilians of enemy of insurgents? Do you think it is acceptable to perform "shake and bake" operations?

Manic Moran

ISAW wrote:

Let us say I believe you are an officer. You then offer an oxymoron. why should i trust you are correct? It is only argument from authority isn't it?

By that logic, the truth can never be known. The people who write and use the manuals are the US Army. Thus they are the best source on what the US Army policies and regulations are. But you can't accept the best source because they are the US Army, so you must use a less knowledgable source. They may not be as tainted, but they may also not be as accurate.

Would this be the same army where senior officers denied the use of WP as a weapon?

Link, please?

Would it be the same Army who stated they were certian of WMD in Iraq?

I believe that was the CIA, maybe the NSA, the Army just worked off their information.

How is it then that several retiring generals have been extremly critical of the current administration?

Probably because they disagreed with several of the policies implemented. I happen to disagree with a number of them as well. This is an entirely different issue to that of WP.

US troops used WP as a weapon in falluja. SDo you accept that?

Of course

They fired it into places where there were people. do you accept that?

Absolutely. That was the whole point.

When challenged on it their authorities denied using it. Do you accept that?

I accept that a State Dept official denied it. I accept that an Ambassador denied it. I do not accept that those two individuals would know a WP round if it came up to them and said "Hello, I'm a WP round," let alone the legality of their use. I do not accept that the Pentagon ever denied it. The issue here is people going outside of their bounds of knowledge and responsiblity in making statements to the press, not over whether or not the Army considered WP legal.

Do you condone the use of WP against people whether civilians of enemy of insurgents?

Civililans, no. Insurgents, yes.

Do you think it is acceptable to perform "shake and bake" operations?

Yes. They may not be pretty, (what is, in combat?) but they work, and they're legal.

NTM

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

By that logic, the truth can never be known. The people who write and use the manuals are the US Army.

Thus they are the best source on what the US Army policies and regulations are.

strange above you state that the Battle Book (a US army manual) is not to be trusted! You contradict yourself.

But you can't accept the best source because they are the US Army, so you must use a less knowledgable source. They may not be as tainted, but they may also not be as accurate.

I used reference to international law and to actual photos and video footage from Iraq. Video that will not be shown in the US "free" media. Media reportage from Iraq is strictly curtailed. By whom? By the military! Your so called "best source". You also delve into semantics and maintain that WP is acceptable if you throw it at someone or fire it from a rifle or a mortar but it suddenly becomes unacceptable if it is dropped from a plane.

A rain of fire came down on the city, and people targeted by the different coloured substances began to burn. We found people dead, with strange injuries, with their clothes intact," a biologist from Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq al-Deraji tells Ranucci.

thats a biologists not an army officer. Mind you I dont think you will get rank and file marines on here because they wouldn't be allowed. But ask then in a few years time when they come home. Of course all the fuss will have died down by then eh?

I believe that was the CIA, maybe the NSA, the Army just worked off their information.

Oh! So we should trust the Army but when they are found to be completly wrong it is because they have been fed false made up or misleading information? How do we know when they have false information ? Should we trust the Army to tell us? The same army that does not fly people around in secret planes and does not torture prisioners but who nearly kicked one of their own Marines to death in Guantanamo Bay causing permanent brain damage because they thought he was a prisioner (he had been told to dress up and pose as one)?

I accept that a State Dept official denied it. I accept that an Ambassador denied it. I do not accept that those two individuals would know a WP round if it came up to them and said "Hello, I'm a WP round." I do not accept that the Pentagon ever denied it. The issue here is people going outside of their bounds of knowledge and responsiblity in making statements to the press, not over whether or not the Army considered WP legal.

So it is up to the Army to decide if what they do is legal or not? Surely under seperation of powers that in itself is stepping outside its bounds? The Army do not make the law. Furthermore one cant demand others follow rules one wont subscribe to yourself. Well one can, but one would be a hypocrit if you did.

this is to me symptomatic of the recent revival of "positive law" in the US. I mean the idea of "show me what rule I broke" and "if there isnt a law on it it isnt wrong" REcently in Ireland statutory Rape was struck down. consequently if a fifteen year old girl has consentual sex with a forty year old man (rape does not apply to men under Irish law) he is not committing a crime. Is he doing something wrong? You bet he is!

Germanys soverign parliament passed the nurnberg laws which stated gypsies and jews were sub humans, undermenchen. After WWII Jackson the US prosecutor made a case for "war crimes" ( I think the term may have been invented then alond with the widely accepted use of "holocaust" or "genocide" ). the contention was that a state can pass immoral laws which are WRONG even if they think they are right! THe US for example had slavery laws in the past. Go fifty years on the Us claim that they are not subject to what everyone else and the international Law says. Bizzare turn around isnt it?
By the same token Bush will tell you thet the federal government are not going to comment about the death penalty in Texas because thet is an internal matter for Texax to decide. He will however claim that abortion is wrong and "natural law" says it is wrong and state that States should not have abortion and that he would do his utmost to force them to change their position.


Civililans, no. Insurgents, yes.

The RAI doccumentary has footage of civilians. do you think it was made up? Please dont try the Army semantics on me. I have also had ** years national service. "Collateral damage" is NOT an aexplanation for

By the way the "main" guy Jeff in the documentary was not happy with him being overdubbed and cut.

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/body.asp
scroll down, on the right hand side below the photo of the corpse wearing a black jacket with press written on it, you find the list of videos. The uncut interview is 3rd from top, under "Versione integrale dell'intervista al militare Jeff Engleheart sull'utilizzo di fosforo bianco su civili"

Yes. They may not be pretty, (what is, in combat?) but they work, and they're legal.

So is sex with a consenting thirteen year old in Ireland. does that make it right?

Mind you I do not agree that WP used as a chemical weapon is legal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1642989,00.html

White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".

thats against PEOPLE .

There were widespread reports that in March 2003 US marines had dropped incendiary bombs around the bridges over the Tigris and the Saddam Canal on the way to Baghdad. The commander of Marine Air Group 11 admitted that "We napalmed both those approaches". Embedded journalists reported that napalm was dropped at Safwan Hill on the border with Kuwait. In August 2003 the Pentagon confirmed that the marines had dropped "mark 77 firebombs". Though the substance these contained was not napalm, its function, the Pentagon's information sheet said, was "remarkably similar". While napalm is made from petrol and polystyrene, the gel in the mark 77 is made from kerosene and polystyrene. I doubt it makes much difference to the people it lands on.

Terry

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?

somewhere between sticks and stones.
it's an illegal war.
that is all.

ISAW

Philip Coyle, assistant secretary of defense from 1994-2001 in the Clinton administration, and now a senior adviser with the Center for Defense Information, says it would be a "good idea" for, and in the "best interest" of, the government to inquire into the allegations. Charges like these and others, such as those that the CIA maintains jails outside the country, are "hurting our image around the world," he says.

The use of weapons like white phosphorus is problematic because it is extremely difficult to determine combatants from civilians, he adds.

"The problem in Iraq, and the problem all along has been, how do you tell?" he says.

http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2005-11-17/news.html

ISAW

On the suggestion that only military targets were discriminated for WP:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2412/

It is also clear that U.S. Marines fired WP indiscriminately in Fallujah. Darrin Mortenson, a reporter for the San Diego-area North County Times, was embedded with the Camp Pendleton Marines in Fallujah. In an April 11, 2004 article, Mortenson describes a daily pattern that escalated during the Battle of Fallujah. Nicholas Bogert, a 22-year-old mortar team leader, directs his team to fire countless rounds of “shake and bake” into Fallujah neighborhoods, “never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.

Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq, said that the allegations of WP’s use against civilians was “tantamount to propaganda, falsehood and rumors.”

When asked about the photos of people burned to the bone while their clothing remained untouched, he theorizes that the damage could have been inflicted by a suicide bomber.

James Nachtwey, the award-winning war photographer, wrote in 1985 that if everyone “could see for themselves what white phosphorus does to the face of a child … they would understand that nothing is worth letting things get to the point where that happens to even one person, let alone thousands.”

Manic Moran. Your "bad things happen in war" is a pritty lame excuse as I see it.
www.intel-dump.com

In addition to the CWC and Protocil III a weapon can be unlawful if its use would violate general principles against means of war causing “superfluous injury” or “unnecessary suffering,” a concept dating from the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration on Exploding Bullets and now widely recognized as constituting customary international law.

These principles can result both in the outright illegality of a weapon, as well as more limited restrictions on certain uses. For example, while exploding or incendiary bullets of less than 400 grams (14 oz.) were banned outright by the 1868 Convention, it was recognized during WWI their use was essential for the aircraft of the day to shoot down Zeppelins bombing English cities, and the prohibition is now recognized as banning simply their deliberate anti-personnel use. So they can lawfully be fired at an aircraft, as long as the aircrew are not the deliberate aimpoint. It is thus consistent with customary law to assert that white phosphorous (WP) can lawfully be used for smoke screens, to ignite military stores, etc., but not as a weapon of choice against enemy combatants unless no other weapon can reach them. This is exactly the conclusion the recent ICRC study on Customary International Humanitarian Law reached; Rule 85 states: “The anti-personnel use of incendiary weapons is prohibited, unless it is not feasible to use a less harmful weapon to render a person hors de combat” while the previous Rule 84 calls for particular care to avoid or minimize the impact of incendiaries on civilians.

The article in the Army’s own artillery journal leaves no doubt that WP was deliberately employed in an anti-personnel role in Fallujah; the core legal issue concerning its use against the Iraqi fighters thus becomes a factual question of whether other weapons causing less superfluous injury or suffering could have been employed. If so, its use in that role was illegal, if not then it was permissible against the enemy fighters under this law.

he law of war is quite clear that armed forces must distinguish between military and civilian objects in conducting attacks; this principle of distinction requires situation specific consideration of the means and methods to be employed. According to the account of the Army artillerymen, virtually all the artillery firing against Fallujah was conducted in a “danger close” environment, meaning U.S. forces were within 600 yards of the intended targets and the first rounds of each fire mission would thus be deliberately offset from the target in a direction away from friendly forces and then walked on using observer spots. This is necessary because according to http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/7_19/national_news/16750-1.html
dispersion, or essentially notional first round accuracy, of the Palladin howitizers employed at Fallujah is +/- 370 meters! That means that the first round could predictably fall anywhere within four football fields of the intended target. That’s not really a problem in warfare in open terrain, but in an urban environment it surely is.

Manic Moran

ISAW wrote:

strange above you state that the Battle Book (a US army manual) is not to be trusted! You contradict yourself.

No I don't. I refer you to above where I categorically state that the Battle Book is not a manual or regulation. It has about as much force as a Garda down in Templemore telling student Gardai that it's quite permissable for Joe Bloggs to walk up Grafton street with a machinegun.

You also delve into semantics and maintain that WP is acceptable if you throw it at someone or fire it from a rifle or a mortar but it suddenly becomes unacceptable if it is dropped from a plane.

That's not my distinction. It comes from the treaties quoted earlier by someone else. My guess, and it's only that, is that the distinction was made to avoid repeats of the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo.

Oh! So we should trust the Army but when they are found to be completly wrong it is because they have been fed false made up or misleading information?

The Army's statements can only be as accurate as the information they have obtained. You can't reasonably expect anything more.

So it is up to the Army to decide if what they do is legal or not?

Curiously, yes. The Judge Advocate General's corps (military lawyers) scrutinise new weapons and actions to determine whether or not they are deemed to contravene international law.

Surely under seperation of powers that in itself is stepping outside its bounds?

Not at all. The Army does not make policy, it does not determine what constitutes a legal or illegal weapon. It only checks to make sure that the weapons which enter service meet or do not meet the criteria determined by others.

REcently in Ireland statutory Rape was struck down. consequently if a fifteen year old girl has consentual sex with a forty year old man (rape does not apply to men under Irish law) he is not committing a crime. Is he doing something wrong? You bet he is!

I submit then that the correct course of action is to draft a new law making it illegal.

By the same token Bush will tell you thet the federal government are not going to comment about the death penalty in Texas because thet is an internal matter for Texax to decide. He will however claim that abortion is wrong and "natural law" says it is wrong and state that States should not have abortion and that he would do his utmost to force them to change their position.

You may not understand it, but he is in fact correct. The contention on Abortion is based on the US (Federal) Constitution and its ammendments, the contention on the Death Penalty is based purely on the individual state's legislation, murder not being a federal crime.

The RAI doccumentary has footage of civilians. do you think it was made up?

Not at all.

Please dont try the Army semantics on me. I have also had ** years national service. "Collateral damage" is NOT an aexplanation for

Your sentence was cut off, but if you meant to say 'collaterol damage is not an explanation for this,' I would beg to differ. It's not a desireable result, but it does happen. As a former troop, you should know that despite all the talk of 'surgical precision', when you start slinging explosives and such around, things get a bit dodgy for everyone.

So is sex with a consenting thirteen year old in Ireland. does that make it right?

I don't know. It seems a bit subjective. What does the Irish population think? I believe it's legal and accepted as 'right' in the Netherlands, no? (Age of consent being 12?)

Mind you I do not agree that WP used as a chemical weapon is legal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1642989,00.html
thats against PEOPLE .

And if it is used against personnel with the intention of burning the flesh from their bodies? How about if it's used against people inside buildings, with the hope that some of the splash of phosphorous flies in through the window, setting the furniture on fire, and forcing the persons inside out of the building into the open where they can then be gunned down by small arms, or blown up by HE shells?

There were widespread reports that in March 2003 US marines had dropped incendiary bombs around the bridges over the Tigris and the Saddam Canal on the way to Baghdad. <snip> I doubt it makes much difference to the people it lands on.

No, I don't think it does either. Your point being?

somewhere between sticks and stones.
it's an illegal war.
that is all.

That's the difference between Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. You refer to the former, and may or may not be correct, I'm not addressing it. This thread is about the latter which is a distinct and separate issue from the former.

“never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.

Quite possible. I fired into structures myself, not knowing exactly what it was I was shooting at. All I needed to know is that someone was in there shooting at me. I never knew how many, or if I hit them.

That last post of yours was actually the most reasonable you've put up so far, not least because you at least acknowledge that there is some question over whether or not there was any outright illegality. (For example, the concept of 'Was there a less painful way of dealing with the issue?')

NTM

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

Link, please?

Sorry. I was wrong about this. government and administration denied the use of WP. Senior army source denied the use of WP against civilians

I believe the senior Army sources were wrong and the indiscriminate use and area targeting and ranging of the weapons attests to that. I have fired mortars. In the countryside one can offset. In a city you would have only the idea where your offset is landing by range but not on whom it is landing. Mortars target an area not a person. Civilians were known to be in the City. Funally one usually has a "spotter". Who were the spotters in Falluja? What did they see? what did they report?

Manic Moran

ISAW wrote:

Mortars target an area not a person. Civilians were known to be in the City. Funally one usually has a "spotter". Who were the spotters in Falluja? What did they see? what did they report?

I have no idea who the spotters were, what they saw, or what they reported. Do you? Anyone can call for artillery, of course, not just FOs.

NTM

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

I have no idea who the spotters were, what they saw, or what they reported. Do you? Anyone can call for artillery, of course, not just FOs.

You are "shifting the burden".
Of course i don't know if or what any spotter reported. If I did sure wouldn't I post it here? The point is though that either they had one on which case what did he see? Or they didnt have one in which case they fired indiscriminatley into areas they could not see.

The burden of proof isnt on my side in this one. One can assume they didnt have spotters untill the military come along and say "we didnt fore indiscriminately we had spotters" in which case I would like to know what they saw.

Moriarty

So we can also assume that you're a multiple murderer until the garda commissioner comes onto these boards to say you aren't? After all, the burden of proof is on you and the gardai.

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

No I don't. I refer you to above where I categorically state that the Battle Book is not a manual or regulation. It has about as much force as a Garda down in Templemore telling student Gardai that it's quite permissable for Joe Bloggs to walk up Grafton street with a machinegun.

I aploogise. I am sorry if I misunderstood you
Please tell me then if FM 6.20 is or is not a manual?
Entitled FIRE SUPPORT IN THE AIRLAND BATTLE
Which states the following in chapter 2 section III
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-20/fm620_3.htm#REF17h3

COORDINATION INSTRUCTIONS

When tasking a force or unit that controls sensors, the collection manager should consider mission, enemy, troops available, terrain and weather, and time available (METT-T). Emphasis should be placed on the following:

* Observable features of the target.

* Boundaries of named areas of interest and target areas of interest.

* Required location accuracy.

* Cueing to maximize target locations and sensor system survivability.

* Limitations on reconnaissance.

* Limitations on the use of fire support to attack acquired targets.

* Restrictions on the use of illuminating ammunition and flares.

* Restrictions on the use of active infrared (IR).

* Restrictions of smoke and obscurants on target acquisition systems.

* Electronic warfare threat.

* Restrictions on the use of electronic emitters.

* Routes to be used (air and ground).

* Reporting procedures and communications links to be established between the sensor and the fire support control elements.

The commander must have timely and accurate combat information and target acquisition to be successful in battle. To achieve synchronization of information, target acquisition, and combat power with the maneuver commander's battle plan, he must ensure complete coordination among his operations, intelligence, and fire support staffs during the planning and conduct of the operation.

Did they RTFM? If artillery was used as a delivery system for WP then if they followed the above procedure where are the reports and briefings on the above? In particular where are their standing orders on * Restrictions on the use of illuminating ammunition and flares?

Here is more from further down in that reference: emphasis added by me

CHEMICAL WEAPONS

Policy

The primary purpose of chemical weapons is to deter their use by others. If, however, deterrence should fail, they would be used to cause the enemy to terminate use and to deny him a significant military advantage. The United States national policy precludes first use of chemical agents. They will be used only if authorized by the President. If the enemy uses chemical agents, the primary concern is the termination of chemical warfare on favorable terms, at the lowest possible level. Chemical weapons can quickly and decisively alter combat force ratios to change the course of battle. Knowing what these weapons will do and how they are planned, coordinated, and integrated with maneuver, EW, and nuclear and nonnuclear fire support is essential to conducting effective retaliatory operations.

philologos

I'm not surprised they can do whatever the f*ck they want in relation to global politics, this sounds like their plan to use nuclear bombs to stop the nuclear plain in Iran... rediculous

ISAW

Moriarty wrote:

So we can also assume that you're a multiple murderer until the garda commissioner comes onto these boards to say you aren't? After all, the burden of proof is on you and the gardai.

You can assume what you like. But if you happen to have a load of dead bodies on your hands which are covered with blister agents and I tell you I was in the area before you arrived to find them then you might think about asking me how those bodies got that way. If I say "it was an unfortunate accident" you might not let me walk away from it. Apparently if we are ina "war on terror" and I say the same thing you have to let me walk away.

Manic Moran

ISAW wrote:

I aploogise. I am sorry if I misunderstood you
Please tell me then if FM 6.20 is or is not a manual?
Entitled FIRE SUPPORT IN THE AIRLAND BATTLE
Which states the following in chapter 2 section III
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-20/fm620_3.htm#REF17h3

It is indeed a manual. Show me where it says that there is any reference to a prohibition on the use of WP as being contrary to the laws of war.

Restrictions on use of flares/illum might be as simple as "The target area is dry scrubland and runs the risk of setting the terrain on fire," which could be problematic if you're on the defense. Or it could be something to do with the interference with night vision, which they have an effect on. Your applying one possible interpretation to a clause does not mean it is automatically the accurate one simply because it happens to fit your preferred theory.

The bit about chemical munitions is not applicable in this case because the US (or any other military) does not categorise WP as a chemical munition. If you were talking about VX shells or some such, then yes, it becomes relevant.

NTM

So Glad

To be honest, it doesn't matter what weapons are legal, or what are not chemical. They are barbaric acts and examples of mans inhumanity to man. The war, as a whole, is a sham, and a ploy for profit. Manic Moran, you are wrong. Get over it. It doesn't matter if white phospherous is legal or not. It is barbaric enough to use on women and children so please stop defending such a thing.

A Dub in Glasgo

It is amazing how some people would justify the slaughter of civilian men, women and children during an invasion

Manic Moran

So Glad wrote:

It is barbaric enough to use on women and children so please stop defending such a thing.

What isn't barbaric about war?

If you want to argue whether or not the war was a good idea in the first place, and whether or not the US Marines should have been in Fallujah in the first place, that's one thing, and you'll note I've been relatively silent on the issue.

The conduct of the soldiers and Marines once the battle has been engaged is an entirely different kettle of fish. I don't think there's anything more or less barbaric about being burned by WP than being eviscerated by artillery rounds or machineguns. It all sounds rather unpleasant to me.

There are those who are arguing the manner of death as a method of arguing the rationale for the war in the first place. It's pointless. Dead is dead. If you want to accuse Bush et al of being warmongers, fine. But this thread appears to be primarily focused on people being revolted by what the 'rules' allow, and people are attempting to bridge the divider between the conduct within warfare, and the decision to go to war in the first place. That is what I object to.

Oooh.. This was post # 666...

NTM

Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It is amazing how some people would justify the slaughter of civilian men, women and children during an invasion

Yeah, I agree. I dont understand how the IRA ever had any support either.

A plate of hypocrisy with inconsistency sauce for table 11 please.

A Dub in Glasgo

Moriarty wrote:

Yeah, I agree. I dont understand how the IRA ever had any support either.

A plate of hypocrisy with inconsistency sauce for table 11 please.

Who did they invade?

Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Who did they invade?

My apologies, I was unaware of the get-out clause of it being righteous to justify the slaughter of civilian men, women and children if you aren't invading somewhere.

A Dub in Glasgo

Moriarty wrote:

My apologies, I was unaware of the get-out clause of it being righteous to justify the slaughter of civilian men, women and children if you aren't invading somewhere.

Apology accepted, what exactly is your point????

Moriarty

A Dub in Glaso wrote:

Apology accepted, what exactly is your point????

That your position as stated a few posts back seems rather tenuous when you vocally back a diametrically opposable position in another situation of armed conflict.

A Dub in Glasgo

Moriarty wrote:

That your position as stated a few posts back seems rather tenuous when you vocally back a diametrically opposable position in another situation of armed conflict.

Ahh right, so you have now slipped into Earthman mode and now want to know how peoples views are in totally irrelevant topics? Anything specific?

Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Ahh right, so you have now slipped into Earthman mode and now want to know how peoples views are in totally irrelevant topics? Anything specific?

Either you're against civilians being targetted by armed forces, or you aren't. I can't really see a middle ground tbh. From what I can see, you've decided on what you want to believe in each situation, and then worked back through the specifics deciding what you do and don't support in each situation so that you can arrive at a conclusion you like. Seemingly this has led you down a path which has ended up with you supporting entirely opposite positions on one issue, so that you can continue to believe in whatever you believe.

That's not the basis of any sort of logical or, dare I say it, good outlook on life.

A Dub in Glasgo

Moriarty wrote:

Either you're against civilians being targetted by armed forces, or you aren't. I can't really see a middle ground tbh. From what I can see, you've decided on what you want to believe in each situation, and then worked back through the specifics deciding what you do and don't support in each situation so that you can arrive at a conclusion you like. Seemingly this has led you down a path which has ended up with you supporting entirely opposite positions on one issue, so that you can continue to believe in whatever you believe.

That's not the basis of any sort of logical or, dare I say it, good outlook on life.

So thats no specifics then???

Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So thats no specifics then???

Moriarty wrote:

Either you're against civilians being targetted by armed forces, or you aren't.

...

A Dub in Glasgo

*cough* *cough*

No specifics then??

Moriarty

Ah I see. The 'some civilians are better people than other civilians (when they are killed by political groups I disagree with rather than share an affinity with)' approach. Say no more.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

Here is another one.
Please tell me then if FM 6-20-1
Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for THE FIELD ARTILLERY CANNON BATTALION is or is not a manual?

Which states the following in Appendix B under the heading COUNTERGUERRILLA OPERATIONS ( I assume combatting "insurgents" is this operation)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-20-1/Appb.htm#s10

The emphasis in the following is in the original.

In all cases, the application of firepower must reflect the principle of minimum essential force. These restrictions do not hinge on the amount of firepower used but rather on collateral damage and coordination and control measures. The commander must determine the physical, psychological, and political impact of applying firepower that produces collateral damage. In all cases, the use of firepower must fall within any restrictions stated in the ROE. The use of excessive force by fire might result in the perception that the government of the host country is losing control and becoming ineffective. Thus, the US forces commander integrates his fire support into his tactical plan in accordance with prevailing restriction; however, he always ensures he has adequate fire support for likely contingencies.

So the question arises "Was the use of WP into an area where civilians were known to be i.e. "collateral damage" using the minimum essential force"?