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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Art
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on allegations that U.S. forces have used illegal chemical weapons, specifically Mark 77 firebombs, in Iraq, which some argue are a modern form of napalm. The U.S. government had previously denied using these weapons, leading to accusations of misinformation and hypocrisy, especially given that the invasion of Iraq was justified by claims of Saddam Hussein possessing illegal weapons. Participants debate the classification of Mark 77 firebombs, with some asserting they are incendiary rather than chemical weapons, while others cite UN bans on similar munitions established in 1980. The conversation also touches on the implications of these actions for international law and the credibility of the U.S. government, particularly in relation to its allies, such as the UK. Concerns about civilian casualties and the ethical ramifications of using such weapons in conflict are also highlighted, alongside criticisms of media coverage and the perceived bias in discussions about U.S. military actions compared to other global conflicts.
  • #31
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
El Hombre Invisible said:
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.
 
  • #33
January... ooh, so soon after that refuting article Evo linked came out. Coincidence?
 
  • #34
1 said:
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
 
  • #35
quetzalcoatl9 said:
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.
 
  • #36
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.
 
  • #37
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
rachmaninoff said:
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. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
Evo said:
I guess Mr Ingram doesn't know how to go on the internet and view publicly displayed information. :rolleyes:
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 :smile:
 
  • #40
Hurkyl said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
alexandra said:
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?
 
  • #42
alexandra said:
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.
 
  • #43
quetzalcoatl9 said:
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?
 
  • #44
quetzalcoatl9 said:
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.
 
  • #45
brewnog said:
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).
 
  • #46
alexandra said:
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".
 
  • #47
quetzalcoatl9 said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
quetzalcoatl9 said:
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).
 
  • #49
Hurkyl said:
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'. :approve: Well, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so I guess I should be flattered. :rolleyes:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
alexandra said:
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.
 
  • #51
Well, I wasn't trying to echo his sentiment, so nyah. :-p

I will admit I should have said something like "the alledged non-representative sample", though.
 
  • #52
Art said:
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'. :approve: Well, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so I guess I should be flattered. :rolleyes:
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.


ok, put 'er there buddy.. <quetzalcoatl extends handshake, then withdraws at last second to smooth hair> :smile:
 
  • #53
Can we get back, somewhat, to the topic, please?

My €0.02's worth: those running the show are skilled pollies with considerable determination. The resources they have at their disposal, to 'spin' the news, are enormous. In the case of the US administration, we've seen that one tactic is to 're-define' the core concepts used in treaties (remember the 'torture memos'?). At the end of the day, it matters little whether this treaty or that has been broken - such violations are never (almost never?) acted upon simply because they are violations - there's some deeper/broader issue.

In the case of the US in Iraq, it's to do with what vital national (US) interests are involved, and when/if/how some others could come along and trump these (or, the vital interests secured, the need for occupation goes away). Three decades later, historians will record the ultimate cause of the US withdrawal (the changes in vital national interests) as well as the immediate ones (perhaps, violations of various treaties; more likely, 'public opinion').

In the case of the UK and Australia in Iraq, it's to do with a perception of vital national interests being best served by following the US (I can't see how either country could have any significant national interest best served, on its own, by sending troops there).

As a side note, it's curious to see some in the current US administration having such an apparent disregard for history (or maybe it's just arrogance and hubris) - 'last throes'? 'welcomed as liberators'? not to mention the apparent willfulness to disregard the long-term consequences of Gitmo.
 
  • #54
Nereid said:
As a side note, it's curious to see some in the current US administration having such an apparent disregard for history (or maybe it's just arrogance and hubris) - 'last throes'? 'welcomed as liberators'?
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by that - are you comparing the reception we got in Iraq to, say, the reception we got in Japan or Germany?
not to mention the apparent willfulness to disregard the long-term consequences of Gitmo.
What long-term consequences?
 
  • #55
As a side note, it's curious to see some in the current US administration having such an apparent disregard for history (or maybe it's just arrogance and hubris) - 'last throes'? 'welcomed as liberators'?
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by that - are you comparing the reception we got in Iraq to, say, the reception we got in Japan or Germany?
A little to brief, sorry.

Of course, none of us is privvy to the detailed planning documents used by Rumsfeld et al., with scenarios of what would happen in the weeks, months, and years after the invasion. However, if that planning was done well, with an understanding of the various ethnic, religious, etc groups in Iraq, the history of relations between these groups, etc, the high liklihood of the invasion and subsequent occupation creating an insurgency (and thousands of now well trained, motivated, and armed terrorists) would have been included in those scenarios. Judging by the public comments of US administration officials, and reports of what's actually happening in Iraq, it's hard to square it all with 'good scenario planning, based on historical understanding'. Reasonable conclusion (tentative, as always): Rumsfeld et al. didn't read up on much history.
not to mention the apparent willfulness to disregard the long-term consequences of Gitmo.
What long-term consequences?
Much less restraint by US friends - and non-friends - on the use of torture, illegal detention, etc. Increased resistance by various 'nasty' groups to having the US involved in any international 'fact-finding' missions (etc). Greater need by US to use arm-twisting to get international cooperation. Indirectly, the creation of thousands more anti-American terrorists. Shifting the focus of 'solving' the 'terrorist crisis' from understanding and addressing the root causes to 'tracking down and destroying terrorist cells'. ...
 
  • #56
Here's an interesting article from an official Iraqi Gov't health ministry source relating to the use of internationally banned weapons in the battle of Fallujah.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/744/1/80/

and another claiming eyewitness accounts

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6890A8DA-AF79-45AD-BB4F-42C060978A07.htm

These allegations should at least merit investigation by independant 3rd party countries

Given the definition below does the attack on Fallujah constitute a war crime?

Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
Art said:
Here's an interesting article from an official Iraqi Gov't health ministry source relating to the use of internationally banned weapons in the battle of Fallujah.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/744/1/80/

The article is hopelessly biased. Notice that it is trying to use depleted uranium in connection with nuclear weapons.
Besides, all they are sighting is ONE official as a source. You need to have some good proof even to investigate whether chemical weapons were used or not.

Believe me, if this even had a hint of truth, the media would have pounced on it like a pack of wolves on sheep.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
sid_galt said:
The article is hopelessly biased. Notice that it is trying to use depleted uranium in connection with nuclear weapons.
Besides, all they are sighting is ONE official as a source. You need to have some good proof even to investigate whether chemical weapons were used or not.

Believe me, if this even had a hint of truth, the media would have pounced on it like a pack of wolves on sheep.
note my comment.
These allegations should at least merit investigation by independant 3rd party countries

It is also worth pointing out that the "ONE official" happens to be the person assigned by the coalition friendly Iraqi gov't to lead a team to visit Fallujah to report on the health issues there following the battle.
 
  • #59
What long-term consequences?
My earlier reply wasn't very coherent.

Russ, it boils down to 'slippery slope'; once you start justifying exceptions to your espoused core values (democracy, rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, equality, ...), it's extraordinarily hard to get those values back, and sooo easy to keep sliding down.

In the case of gitmo, it seems almost all the espoused core US values have been, and are continuing to be, broken.
 
  • #60
Art said:
note my comment.


It is also worth pointing out that the "ONE official" happens to be the person assigned by the coalition friendly Iraqi gov't to lead a team to visit Fallujah to report on the health issues there following the battle.
You need to read what you post a little more closely. Your Iraqi "official" is claiming that the US used "gases". "In factone news source quoted Dr. ash-Shaykhli as stating, "I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses." Then it goes on to say that some analysts have made the assumption that descriptions of scenes from the attack resembled napalm. :rolleyes:

The US has stated that they did use Mark77 in the attack on Bahgdad, they have denied using it in Fallujah. I think there would be pretty concrete evidence if Mark77 had been used.
 

Similar threads

News Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?
  • · Replies 298 ·
10
Replies
298
Views
73K
News Bush admin ordered CIA to forge Iraq/al-Qaeda link
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
News Did the US Use White Phosphorus as a Weapon in Falluja?
  • · Replies 113 ·
4
Replies
113
Views
13K
News Is Colin Powell a Compulsive Liar ?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
7K
News Where Did the Billions of Dollars Go in Iraq's Reconstruction Effort?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
News Did Bush lie about Iraqi weapons labs ?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
News US-Iraq Security Pact: Impasse over Sovereignty
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
News BBC obtains Iraq casualty figures
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
News Is the US Planting WMDs in Iraq to Divert Attention?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K