News So, the question is: Are US Forces Using Illegal Chemical Weapons in Iraq?

[Art]

Having gone to war on the grounds that Iraq had illegal weapons, US forces are using illegal chemical weapons against Iraqis. The US gov't lied to their allies last January when asked by the British gov't if allegations of it's use of Napalm or similar substances (which was banned by the UN in 1980) were true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4116262.stm

And more hypocrisy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

 

[brewnog]

Where does that article state that the US are using illegal chemical weapons against Iraqis, and what does napalm (which wasn't used) have to do with chemical weapons anyway?

 

[FredGarvin]

The firebombs are pretty much napalm. It's a combustable gel munition. I had no idea they were treated as a chemical weapon though. I see no reason for them to be trated any differently than, say a cluster bomb. I fail to see what the big to do is with the Brits other than someone not knowing we used some.

 

[Art]

Where does that article state that the US are using illegal chemical weapons against Iraqis, and what does napalm (which wasn't used) have to do with chemical weapons anyway?

Mark 77 firebombs which are the new improved form of napalm.

The inflammable fuel in Mark-77 fire bombs is thickened with slightly different chemicals, and is believed to contain oxidizers, which make it harder to extinguish than Napalm-B. But Mark-77s are referred to as 'napalm' in some current US inventories and public affairs documents.

As I stated the UN (yes that same group who the US govt says it's rulings are sacrosanct providing they concur with the US gov't opinions of course) declared fuel-gel mixture munitions illegal in 1980.

FALLUJAH NAPALMED

Nov 28 2004

US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told?
By Paul Gilfeather Political Editor

US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah.

News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.

And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/...694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6772

Chemical weapons such as mustard gas, nerve gas and napalm have been banned by international convention since the 1980s. The main justification made by the US, British and Australian governments in March 2003 for their invasion of Iraq was the claim — since proven to have been a complete fabrication — that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed stockpiles of these banned weapons and was preparing to use them, via the al Qaeda terrorist network, to attack the United States.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p15b.htm

BTW What do you think chemical weapons are??

 

[faust9]

Mark 77 firebombs which are the new improved form of napalm.


As I stated the UN (yes that same group who the US govt says it's rulings are sacrosanct providing they concur with the US gov't opinions of course) declared fuel-gel mixture munitions illegal in 1980.



http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/...694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6772


http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p15b.htm

BTW What do you think chemical weapons are??

Chemical weapons are 'usually' defined as those causing damage upon contact with the gaseous, solid, or liquid form of the weapon. In this case, Napalm does not do the damage by itself. The combustion of the napalm does the damage---the fire is what hurts not the isolated chemical.

Napalm would be a horrendous way to bite the bullet IMO and I see no reason to use it in Iraq. There are too many horror stories concerning the use of Napalm as a weapon and a defoliant in Vietnam. Granted death from above instead of send GI's into the heat of battle is preferred. Kill the bad guys but don't give them the same opportunity is the standard OP. Call be crazy, if we have a good enough clue as to the location of the bad guys then it seems a conventional munition would suffice.

The use of Napalm here is kind of funny though (ironic funny not ha ha funny) because it does apparently violate UN mandates(I'll look into this when I get a chance). The question becomes is the US a signatory on the particular treaty banning the use of Napalm?

 

[brewnog]

As I stated the UN (yes that same group who the US govt says it's rulings are sacrosanct providing they concur with the US gov't opinions of course) declared fuel-gel mixture munitions illegal in 1980.

Sorry, I missed you stating that!

BTW What do you think chemical weapons are??

Weapons whose primary method of action do not involve explosive force (nerve agents, like sarin and VX, blood agents like HCN, lachrymatory agents like tear gas, blister agents like mustard, plus a few other classes.) I had no idea that napalm was considered to be a chemical weapon, I just thought it was an incendiary.


Edit: I've just seen that napalm is not classed as a chemical weapon according to Wiki:

There are other chemicals used militarily that are not technically considered to be "chemical weapon agents," such as:

- Incendiary or explosive chemicals (such as napalm, extensively used by the United States in Vietnam, or dynamite) because their destructive effects are primarily due to fire or explosive force, and not direct chemical action.

In any case, nobody's disputing the rather nasty effect of napalm (and its relatives which don't appear to have been specifically banned).

 

[1123581321]

Mark 77 firebombs which are the new improved form of napalm.


As I stated the UN (yes that same group who the US govt says it's rulings are sacrosanct providing they concur with the US gov't opinions of course) declared fuel-gel mixture munitions illegal in 1980.



http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/...694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6772


http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p15b.htm

BTW What do you think chemical weapons are??

i never heard any of this stuff on a major news station, not even the liberal ones. are you sure that this stuff is true? some of your sources look like radical liberal mags/tabloids. i am sure that if it was true, it would be all over newsweek CNN BBC the NY times etc.

fibonacci

 

[Art]

i never heard any of this stuff on a major news station, not even the liberal ones. are you sure that this stuff is true? some of your sources look like radical liberal mags/tabloids. i am sure that if it was true, it would be all over newsweek CNN BBC the NY times etc.

fibonacci

Quite sure. The BBC is hardly a liberal rag. It is the British National Broadcasting Corp.

 

[faust9]

i never heard any of this stuff on a major news station, not even the liberal ones. are you sure that this stuff is true? some of your sources look like radical liberal mags/tabloids. i am sure that if it was true, it would be all over newsweek CNN BBC the NY times etc.

fibonacci

Let Google News become your friend:

http://news.google.com/news?q=NAPALM&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&sa=N&tab=wn

Top story is from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4116262.stm
this was posted in the opening post of this thread.

 

[FredGarvin]

I do remember hearing this a while back. It was something that didn't last for very long for whatever reasons. I remember not thinking anything of it because I didn't realize that the use of napalm was a no-no. I wonder what our military's reason for going against that ruling is...Do we even recognize it? I am sure that there was a reason to use it over other conventional munitions. The situation must have dictated it's use.

Also, why is this being brought up now? I could have sworn that napalm was used in the first gulf war and I don't remember any kind of backlash then.

 

[Art]

I do remember hearing this a while back. It was something that didn't last for very long for whatever reasons. I remember not thinking anything of it because I didn't realize that the use of napalm was a no-no. I wonder what our military's reason for going against that ruling is...Do we even recognize it? I am sure that there was a reason to use it over other conventional munitions. The situation must have dictated it's use.

Also, why is this being brought up now? I could have sworn that napalm was used in the first gulf war and I don't remember any kind of backlash then.

The reason it is an issue now is because when rumours of it's use circulated late last year and it was raised in the House of Commons the US gov't assured T. Blair they had not used this weapon. This information was then communicated to parliament. The British Defense Minister has now had to tell parliament he inadvertantly misled them back then, as he was lied to by the US.

 

[brewnog]

I do remember hearing this a while back. It was something that didn't last for very long for whatever reasons. I remember not thinking anything of it because I didn't realize that the use of napalm was a no-no. I wonder what our military's reason for going against that ruling is...Do we even recognize it? I am sure that there was a reason to use it over other conventional munitions. The situation must have dictated it's use.

Some seem to think that napalm carries such a stigma purely because of its use in Vietnam.

 

[Evo]

I do remember hearing this a while back. It was something that didn't last for very long for whatever reasons. I remember not thinking anything of it because I didn't realize that the use of napalm was a no-no. I wonder what our military's reason for going against that ruling is...Do we even recognize it? I am sure that there was a reason to use it over other conventional munitions. The situation must have dictated it's use.

Also, why is this being brought up now? I could have sworn that napalm was used in the first gulf war and I don't remember any kind of backlash then.

There are always two sides to every story, to believe in either extreme is to be foolish. Let's not be foolish.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

 

[Art]

There are always two sides to every story, to believe in either extreme is to be foolish. Let's not be foolish.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

So are you suggesting that the US were telling the truth back in January when they denied using napalm (or it's modern equiv.) and are now lying when they say they did?

 

[loseyourname]

So are you suggesting that the US were telling the truth back in January when they denied using napalm (or it's modern equiv.) and are now lying when they say they did?

Did you read the link? They've denied using any incendiary weapons in Fallujah or against any insurgents. They admit to using mark-77 against the initial Iraqi defense forces in 2003, a usage which the site says is not illegal. It doesn't seem that there has been any wavering on either of these claims.

 

[Evo]

So are you suggesting that the US were telling the truth back in January when they denied using napalm (or it's modern equiv.) and are now lying when they say they did?

I must have missed the link you posted to the official US announcement of this, can you repost the link to the official US government announcement?

 

[Art]

I must have missed the link you posted to the official US announcement of this, can you repost the link to the official US government announcement?

No you didn't miss it as I didn't post one?? However I did provide a British link. Are you suggesting the BBC are wrong or that they fabricated the Defence Minister's address to parliament?

 

[Art]

Did you read the link? They've denied using any incendiary weapons in Fallujah or against any insurgents. They admit to using mark-77 against the initial Iraqi defense forces in 2003, a usage which the site says is not illegal. It doesn't seem that there has been any wavering on either of these claims.

Excerpt from the BBC article;

Mr Cohen asked in January whether the firebombs had been used by coalition forces in Iraq.

Mr Ingram replied in a written answer: "The United States have confirmed to us that they have not used Mark 77 firebombs, which are essentially napalm canisters, in Iraq at any time.

 

[Evo]

No you didn't miss it as I didn't post one?? However I did provide a British link. Are you suggesting the BBC are wrong or that they fabricated the Defence Minister's address to parliament?

The BBC is just posting stories, like any other news media, they are not a government source. So, you have no official government source.

 

[Hurkyl]

Some little details that haven't yet surfaced in this thread, if Wikipedia is to be believed (emphasis mine):

"Use of incendiary bombs against civilian populations was banned in the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The US has not signed this agreement although they did retire use of napalm."

Dunno if they matter, but complete pictures are usually better pictures.

 

[faust9]

The BBC is just posting stories, like any other news media, they are not a government source. So, you have no official government source.

That's a rather high bar to set now don't you think? All news has to be channeled through big brother now for it to be legit and likewise all news from big brother is automatically factual? Need I bring up Armstrong Williams and the other 'propoganda' news reports?

Even so, from your own link Evo is was stated the Mark-77 munitions were used---Napalm canister weapons.

Just playing the devils advocate on this one. haven't looked into it myself yet. No access to Lexis at the moment.

 

[Evo]

That's a rather high bar to set now don't you think? All news has to be channeled through big brother now for it to be legit and likewise all news from big brother is automatically factual? Need I bring up Armstrong Williams and the other 'propoganda' news reports?

Even so, from your own link Evo is was stated the Mark-77 munitions were used---Napalm canister weapons.

Just playing the devils advocate on this one. haven't looked into it myself yet. No access to Lexis at the moment.

Mark 77 is different from napalm in that it doesn't cling to the skin as napalm does, and there are other differences. In the instances that Mark 77 was used, it was never denied by the US government and is not in violation of any terms of use, which I believe for such incendiary devices are not for use in civilian populations or military within heavily populated civilian areas. The US has not violated either of these as far as I can find.

 

[Art]

The BBC is just posting stories, like any other news media, they are not a government source. So, you have no official government source.

I am frankly incredulous that you do not see the BBC as a credible source. However here is the official trancription from Hansard;

Firebombs/Napalm
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Mark 77 firebombs have been used by Coalition forces (a) in Iraq and (b) in or near areas in Iraq where civilians lived; whether this weapon is equivalent to napalm; whether (i) the UK and (ii) the US has signed the UN convention banning the use of napalm against civilian targets; and if he will make a statement. [207246]

Mr. Ingram: The United States have confirmed to us that they have not used Mark 77 firebombs, which are essentially napalm canisters, in Iraq at any time. No other Coalition member has Mark 77 firebombs in their inventory.

The United Kingdom is bound under Protocol III to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) not to use incendiary weapons (which would include napalm) against military targets located within concentrations of civilians.

US policy in relation to international conventions is a matter for the US Government, but all of our allies are aware of their obligations under international humanitarian law.

 

[Evo]

I am frankly incredulous that you do not see the BBC as a credible source. However here is the official trancription from Hansard;

Any news source is questionable, see my previous post and cite where the US's use of Mark 77 is in violation.

 

[Art]

Any news source is questionable, see my previous post and cite where the US's use of Mark 77 is in violation.

I am glad to note that you now appear to acknowledge that the US did lie to the British gov't in January as reported by the BBC. And certainly on the basis of this the US gov't official reports are highly questionable news sources.
As for violations it has only been recently officially established (today) that they did use Mark 77s (following their prior denial) and we haven't yet been told where in Iraq they used them so it is impossible to answer the second part of your post at this time. Hopefully the inquiry being demanded by British MPs will happen and then we might find out.
p.s. Would you provide the source which said Mark 77s are less sticky than napalm please?

 

[Evo]

I am glad to note that you now appear to acknowledge that the US did lie to the British gov't in January as reported by the BBC.

No, I haven't.

As for violations it has only been recently officially established (today) that they did use Mark 77s (following their prior denial)

Did you see the US government link I posted where it said "Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003." Doesn't look like a cover-up to me.

The reference to Mark 77 not sticking to skin is in your own link.

 

[Art]

No, I haven't.

Well it seems either the US lied to Britain or if not then the British Defense Minister must have lied to parliament. In which case we can expect his sacking next week.

The reference to Mark 77 not sticking to skin is in your own link.

I wondered as this is the same link you rejected originally, still reject and yet you are prepared to quote from?

Here's a fuller article covering all aspects of this discussion.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/966/1/89/

 

[brewnog]

I don't really see what the issue is here.

It seems to me that there's just been a mix-up. Mr Ingram was given misleading information, the origin of which was possibly due to the fact that MK77 bombs aren't actually napalm, or perhaps that incendiary weapons are only banned in areas of civilian concentrations. In any case, he's since told the British government that he was wrong, and that napalm style weapons (in the form of Mk77 bombs) have indeed been used.

I highly doubt that Mr Ingram intended to give misleading information, especially considering that the US had apparently been open about their weapons policy to others. There's not a problem, he has corrected himself.

 

[Brian Bell]

hypocrisy

they reckon they're sending 2000 schitzophrenics ans 1500 multiple personality people - it's psychological warfare!

where are you hiding your weapons, Hussein ?
It's time that you emptied your pockets,
before the inspector goes right off his brain
trying to match our delivery dockets!

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Art, please don't take this personally, but I can't help but notice that the threads you post seem to all have the same anti-USA slant to them...

Why are there no posts on what the Russians are doing in Chechnya, or the massacres in Sudan? Are these not newsworthy?

Or what about the fact that of the ~130 world conflicts currently raging, >90% of them have Islamic majorities as the aggressor?

The context may help put things into perspective, since we are nitpicking over military technical matters that may or may not have even happened.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

So... can I just get this straight. The very recent news (yesterday?) that the US have been using what amounts to a sophisticated version of napalm is entirely refuted by a US government-sourced article saying they haven't been using them, WRITTEN ON THE 9th DECEMBER 2004!

Glad to know we're all keeping open minds here. Keep it up. Cheery-bye.

 

[brewnog]

So... can I just get this straight. The very recent news (yesterday?) that the US have been using what amounts to a sophisticated version of napalm is entirely refuted by a US government-sourced article saying they haven't been using them, WRITTEN ON THE 9th DECEMBER 2004!

Glad to know we're all keeping open minds here. Keep it up. Cheery-bye.

No. Yesterday's news story was that a British ex-MP was disgusted that ministers were misinformed in January, despite a retraction having been made since.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

January... ooh, so soon after that refuting article Evo linked came out. Coincidence?

 

[Burnsys]

i never heard any of this stuff on a major news station, not even the liberal ones. are you sure that this stuff is true? some of your sources look like radical liberal mags/tabloids. i am sure that if it was true, it would be all over newsweek CNN BBC the NY times etc.

fibonacci

Well i think you have discovered how the mass media censor itslefs

 

[alexandra]

Art, please don't take this personally, but I can't help but notice that the threads you post seem to all have the same anti-USA slant to them...

Why are there no posts on what the Russians are doing in Chechnya, or the massacres in Sudan? Are these not newsworthy?

Or what about the fact that of the ~130 world conflicts currently raging, >90% of them have Islamic majorities as the aggressor?

The context may help put things into perspective, since we are nitpicking over military technical matters that may or may not have even happened.

There you go, Art - you've been told now. Discussing current world affairs makes you 'anti-USA'. We should all just keep quiet and let the politicians get on with what they're doing. Democracy in action.

 

[Hurkyl]

You know full well that quetzalcoatl9's accusation was not that merely discussing current world affairs is "anti-american" -- quetzalcoatl9 was referring to the non-representative sample of topics chosen for discussion.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Something's inconsistent here.

In the BBC article (6/24/05):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4116262.stm

Mr Cohen asked in January whether the firebombs had been used by coalition forces in Iraq.

Mr Ingram replied in a written answer: "The United States have confirmed to us that they have not used Mark 77 firebombs, which are essentially napalm canisters, in Iraq at any time.

This is supposedly happened in January 2005; however, from the U.S. State Department, written as of December 9, 2004:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003.

First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003.

Second, as noted above, no Mark-77 firebombs were used in Fallujah.

 

[Evo]

Something's inconsistent here.

In the BBC article (6/24/05):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4116262.stm


This is supposedly happened in January 2005; however, from the U.S. State Department, written as of December 9, 2004:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

I guess Mr Ingram doesn't know how to go on the internet and view publicly displayed information.

 

[Art]

I guess Mr Ingram doesn't know how to go on the internet and view publicly displayed information.

No he went direct to the US gov't for his information. Self evidently not a clever thing to do if you want accurate information

 

[alexandra]

You know full well that quetzalcoatl9's accusation was not that merely discussing current world affairs is "anti-american" -- quetzalcoatl9 was referring to the non-representative sample of topics chosen for discussion.

And my response to this is that this is the major conflict happening at the moment - it is not surprising that it draws so much interest. If we were communicating during the early 1940s, we would undoubtedly have been discussing different conflicts. That discussions on Iraq predominate is partly a result of this being the most important current conflict, and partly a result of involvement. Some people living in the US and in 'coalition' countries are critical of this conflict and/or what is happening in this conflict. Do those people have a right to state what they think (given that their governments have joined this conflict in their names), or not? What is democracy? Why, according to the official justification, is the conflict itself happening? Well, they say they want to 'bring democracy' to the Middle East (starting off with Iraq). Liberal definitions of democracy hold up 'free speech' as one of the ideals to die for. Well, this is what people are doing - exercising their rights. Or is speech no longer a right?

And to address the current topic: whether or not one has signed any documents outlawing the use of such weaponry is immaterial. Any humane person would be affronted by the knowledge that such weapons have been used against people (if it is true that they have been used). It's a matter of simple human decency - that's all. I, for one, am totally against such barbarism.

EDIT: I would really appreciate it if whenever we discuss something people stop trying to stifle debate by accusing those who are against US foreign policy and actions as 'anti-US'. For your information, I am just as anti Australian foreign policy and actions on this issue - ie, I am against the administration of the country I live in. No double standards, you see. It's the issue that is being discussed, not the nationality of people.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

And my response to this is that this is the major conflict happening at the moment - it is not surprising that it draws so much interest. If we were communicating during the early 1940s, we would undoubtedly have been discussing different conflicts. That discussions on Iraq predominate is partly a result of this being the most important current conflict, and partly a result of involvement. Some people living in the US and in 'coalition' countries are critical of this conflict and/or what is happening in this conflict. Do those people have a right to state what they think (given that their governments have joined this conflict in their names), or not? What is democracy? Why, according to the official justification, is the conflict itself happening? Well, they say they want to 'bring democracy' to the Middle East (starting off with Iraq). Liberal definitions of democracy hold up 'free speech' as one of the ideals to die for. Well, this is what people are doing - exercising their rights. Or is speech no longer a right?

that is fine, but it seems like there is a bit of an overrepresentation on Iraq. Since that is just one of many conflicts going on, to focus only on that one over and over and over and over again suggests some kind of agenda. How much more do we have to go through this?

I'm not trying to "silence" anyone, merely to bring up this (what I consider to be) legimate point.

I am very concerned since over 2 million people have died in Sudan now (many as a result of genocide and starvation), aren't you?

 

[brewnog]

And to address the current topic: whether or not one has signed any documents outlawing the use of such weaponry is immaterial. Any humane person would be affronted by the knowledge that such weapons have been used against people (if it is true that they have been used). It's a matter of simple human decency - that's all. I, for one, am totally against such barbarism.

I agree, but war is war. Where rules (notable those laid out in the Geneva Convention) aren't in place, the line of distinction between methods of warfare which are and are not acceptable is not clear, particularly where civilians aren't involved.

 

[brewnog]

I am very concerned since over 2 million people have died in Sudan now (many as a result of genocide and starvation), aren't you?

Yes, definitely. But why not start your own thread about it?

 

[alexandra]

that is fine, but it seems like there is a bit of an overrepresentation on Iraq. Since that is just one of many conflicts going on, to focus only on that one over and over and over and over again suggests some kind of agenda. How much more do we have to go through this?

I'm not trying to "silence" anyone, merely to bring up this (what I consider to be) legimate point.

I am very concerned since over 2 million people have died in Sudan now (many as a result of genocide and starvation), aren't you?

Well, if you are concerned why don't you start a thread on Sudan? Perhaps people will be interested in talking about it, perhaps not. My country's government did not send troops into Sudan without getting the opinions of its people through a referrendum, so I am not personally as involved in what's happening there as I am in this issue.

 

[alexandra]

I agree, but war is war. Where rules (notable those laid out in the Geneva Convention) aren't in place, the line of distinction between methods of warfare which are and are not acceptable is not clear, particularly where civilians aren't involved.

But what if there are treaties and some countries just refuse to sign them? How does that justify actions that the 'global community' see as wrong? See, for example:

The Treaty Database: A Monitor of US Participation in Global Affairs (September 29, 2004)

According to this new report by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, “The Treaty Database: A Monitor of US Participation in Global Affairs,” the US Senate has only ratified around 29% of existing international treaties. The disquieting phenomenon of the US’ reluctance to participate in multilateral treaties presents a clear threat to existing international law and stability. http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/generalindex.htm

And here's a link to the report itself: http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/2004/09database.pdf (it's huge - 114 PDF document).

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Well, if you are concerned why don't you start a thread on Sudan?

a good idea

Perhaps people will be interested in talking about it, perhaps not. My country's government did not send troops into Sudan without getting the opinions of its people through a referrendum, so I am not personally as involved in what's happening there as I am in this issue.

while I do applaude the AU for sending troops, it sure took a long time, and things haven't really changed yet anyway. maybe it is too bad that it took so long for a "referrendum".

over 1/2 a million dead since the Darfur thing started 2 years ago, >2 million since the conflict began in 1983. The kanjaweed are a "spark" that threatens to ignite all of central Africa in Islamic violence and the UN, quite frankly, could care less.

But wait...they are not the evil ones, the US is - for not getting a "referrendum".

 

[alexandra]

while I do applaude the AU for sending troops, it sure took a long time, and things haven't really changed yet anyway. maybe it is too bad that it took so long for a "referrendum".

quetzalcoat|9, you totally misunderstood me - please re-read what I wrote. What I meant to point out was that the Australian people were not asked their opinion in a referrendum (as they should have been). Many Australian people took part in marches against sending troops, but (just as in the US, and in the UK) these demonstrations were ignored by the respective governments - just as news about the demonstrations was only glossed over by the mainstream media.

 

[alexandra]

over 1/2 a million dead since the Darfur thing started 2 years ago, >2 million since the conflict began in 1983. The kanjaweed are a "spark" that threatens to ignite all of central Africa in Islamic violence and the UN, quite frankly, could care less.

But wait...they are not the evil ones, the US is - for not getting a "referrendum".

I have not researched Sudan and am really not up to date with what is happening there (except from what I've seen on TV news and heard on radio news - sources I do not rely on to give a full picture of what is happening). As someone who refrains from discussing issues they know very little about, I cannot comment on Sudan at this point. Please excuse me for not wanting to give an opinion about something I have not read about and analysed extensively - it's a personal quirk of mine. I don't evaluate situations until I've researched them (odd as this might seem).

 

[Art]

You know full well that quetzalcoatl9's accusation was not that merely discussing current world affairs is "anti-american" -- quetzalcoatl9 was referring to the non-representative sample of topics chosen for discussion.

So not content with wishing to construct my arguments for me you would now like to pick my thread subjects too. Maybe like Pengwuino said in another thread 'you wish you were me'. Well, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so I guess I should be flattered.
Still as this is essentially a science forum a few facts might be useful in dispelling the nonsensical aspersions cast on me by such as Quetzcoatl9 and presumably (from your quote above) seconded by yourself.
Out of a total of 7 threads I have started on the political forum 4 have had reference to the USA and 3 have had none. None have been anti-American and threads such as 'Will the US re-introduce the draft' have not even been critical of the current US administration. Those which I have posted which are critical of the US administration I certainly do not apologise for and it certainly does not make me anti-American.
Like it or not US foreign policy is the major issue in the western world today as evidenced by it's prominence in the news media of all of our collective countries. It is also the topic which most of the contributors to this forum are most interested in. As an example when Azimuth started a thread about Lebanon there was precisely 1 reply and that reply was merely to say the poster didn't know much about it.
It is also interesting that posts in threads which should have an international dimension are seized on and attacked by paranoid Bush supporters, such as the media thread started by Lisa, which inevitably reduces the discussion to media influence within the US as people such as myself end up having to defend posts we have written against charges of anti-Americanism by the right wing brigades.
So Hurkyl and Quetzlcoatyl9 I am sure you will want to check the statistics I posted above re my threads but please don't take too long as I look forward to seeing your subsequent retractions and apologies.

 

[brewnog]

But what if there are treaties and some countries just refuse to sign them? How does that justify actions that the 'global community' see as wrong?

Again, I agree, and I'm sure that most others would too. But we're not in the position of choosing methods of warfare, and if we were I'm sure that the decision would not be as easy to make. I think we just have to appreciate that the Geneva Conventions are, at large, respected, and any instances where they are not are treated with the gravity they deserve.