US admited Using WP as a Weapon.

[Mercator]

This is how conspiracy theories start guys - don't you see how easily this discussion gets to the assertion that the USA is using chemical weapons and is committing a war crime in Iraq? Heck, it was in the title of the OP and the link in the previous thread!

This speaks for itself. We should not discuss this boys, because it could lead to an assertion that we don't like.
Sorry Russ, it will lead to what it leads. And let's not forget that we are only "whining" here. The real debate is out there in the mainstream news. You can try to hide it under the carpet of this forum, but in the real world it IS an issue.

 

[Art]

No wonder most of the people here call the P&WA forum the "PF whine cellar".

This is a rather nasty, derogatory ad-hominem attack on all of us who post in this forum? BTW How does this relate to the OP?

 

[Evo]

Thanks for bringing it out in the open. Just quoting that "Saddam only tried to protect himself" without the "and thought all means were justified" is just manipulation. YES OF COURSE SADDAM WAS TRYING TO PROTECT HIMSELF, AND HIS POSITION, WHAT ELSE CAN YOU EXPECT FROM A DICTATOR? The point was, and is (sorry for the better understanders here that I have to repeat this over and over) that we expect from the POTUS that he agrees that NOT all means are justified. Can I ask you now, as a "mentor" to stop the personal issues and either adress the topic that the majority here wants to discuss OR keep your head in the sand (I will not use the ostrich metaphor here, because that also seems to be unacceptable for some of the selectively sensitive on this board) and leave the discussion to others?

I don't know what kind of analogy you intended, but it failed.

Read this article and tell me how his hunting down and killing thousands of his own people can be used in your comparison.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901191.html

 

[Evo]

This is a rather nasty, derogatory ad-hominem attack on all of us who post in this forum? BTW How does this relate to the OP?

It's not directed at anyone in particular but at the level that discussions here have fallen to overall. In case you forgot, not only do I post here, but I am responsible for the direction and quality of the forum, if it's directed at anyone, it's directed at me for allowing things to degrade to this point. I have been asking to raise the quality of discussions here. I intend to make this a better quality forum which more people will feel comfortable joining.

 

[Evo]

No you actually closed it after a post of mine claiming my statement 'that even the battalion doctor joined in the fun dropping HE and WP shells on Fallujah. was ridiculous; I provided the proof which you were good enough to append to the locked thread but you didn't reopen the thread whilst I imagine many people here would have liked to comment on that piece.

I posted your response after the thread closed and said you were right it happened, but reading the entire piece it was evident that this was a tasteless photo op long after the initial battle.

The support for closing the thread wouldn't have come from the same people who have now been proven wrong with their assertion that "WP was not used as an incendiary weapon in Fallujah" would it?

It was a mix, incase you haven't noticed, there are a select few that post here in P&WA. Many more read than post.

If you want to open a thread about the tasteless things that people in the military do, go ahead. Just try not to look like a tabloid article. I'm trying to get people to stop being drama queens and start raising questions in a manner conducive to intelligent discussion. All I've seen the last few months is tabloid headlines, with gangs forming on either side and yelling at each other and throwing rocks. I have taken the feedback from a number of observers and agree we need to raise the bar here.

 

[Art]

This speaks for itself. We should not discuss this boys, because it could lead to an assertion that we don't like.
Sorry Russ, it will lead to what it leads. And let's not forget that we are only "whining" here. The real debate is out there in the mainstream news. You can try to hide it under the carpet of this forum, but in the real world it IS an issue.

Even the BBC is involved in this 'conspiracy'

The UK Ministry of Defence said its use was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.

But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told the BBC: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4442156.stm

 

[loseyourname]

If you feel I am distorting your contribution, then I suggest you look at what you did to mine. I happen to think you are smart enough and capable enough to appreciate the distinctions between an aimed gun and a powder that can become airborne and ignite virtually anything it lands on.

Not that I advocate the use of incendiary weapons for anything other than clearing foliage, but I can understand what Fred is saying. Is being shredded to pieces by hundreds of flying shards of jagged metal from a traditional bomb really much better than being burned alive by flammable gels and gases from an incendiary bomb? Both test the limits of the human pain threshold if they don't kill you.

Anyway, before someone jumps on me for being such a USA homer, I'm not commenting either way on the legality or morality of these actions. This is just a quick quip. Feel free to ignore it.

 

[Art]

I posted your response after the thread closed and said you were right it happened, but reading the entire piece it was evident that this was a tasteless photo op long after the initial battle.

Read it again, this was actually done in the softening up phase before the battle proper had even started.

It was a mix, incase you haven't noticed, there is a select few that post here in P&WA. Many more read than post.
If you want to open a thread about the tasteless things that people in the military do, go ahead. Just try not to look like a tabloid article. I'm trying to get people to stop being drama queens and start raising questions in a manner conducive to intelligent discussion. All I've seen the last few months is tabloid headlines, with gangs forming on either side and yelling at each other and throwing rocks. I have taken the feedback from a number of observers and agree we need to raise the bar here.

The problem I see is issues are raised and instead of discussing the issue many of us have to defend the fact that the issue exists!
Now if you can prevent this obstruction to sensible debate from the far-right or overly nationalistic amongst us I'm sure the quality of the threads will improve.

Not that I advocate the use of incendiary weapons for anything other than clearing foliage, but I can understand what Fred is saying. Is being shredded to pieces by hundreds of flying shards of jagged metal from a traditional bomb really much better than being burned alive by flammable gels and gases from an incendiary bomb? Both test the limits of the human pain threshold if they don't kill you.

for example

 

[Art]

Not that I advocate the use of incendiary weapons for anything other than clearing foliage, but I can understand what Fred is saying. Is being shredded to pieces by hundreds of flying shards of jagged metal from a traditional bomb really much better than being burned alive by flammable gels and gases from an incendiary bomb? Both test the limits of the human pain threshold if they don't kill you.
Anyway, before someone jumps on me for being such a USA homer, I'm not commenting either way on the legality or morality of these actions. This is just a quick quip. Feel free to ignore it.

The UN certainly thinks so and I thought the US did too. I seem to remember back in the distant past that Saddam's possesion of UN banned weapons was at one time the reason given by the US for the invasion of Iraq.
With regard to this particular issue there is a huge difference between a well aimed shot at an insurgent and the use of an indiscriminate weapon in a civilian area. The first is war the second is mass murder.

p.s. As you can see Evo I am now having to argue that this even is an issue.

 

[Burnsys]

That nitpicking over terminology doesn't change how it was actually used.

Right, also doesn't change the result that was childrens with their skins melted.

The intent and the specifics of the legal definitions are the main reason we are discussing this issue!

Maybe you are discusing the legal definitions, becouse it's the only way the bush administration and you can get away with it, it's mk77 not napalm!

I will repeat again:

It doesn't matter what the intents are, all that matters are the results. so stop with that atitute..

This issue was first brought up as an accusation of a war crime, and for a controlled-use weapon, intent matters.

The end doesn't justify the means.
(no wonder that the motives are Highly cuestioned)

Just so everyone else is crystal clear on what side you are arguing, this is what Burnsys is arguing, and if you don't agree, you need to say so before arguing on his behalf: To paraphrase, Burnsys believes that the US is intentionally killing enemy combatants with WP and may be intentionally killing civilians with it.

I believe that US is using WP to kill insurgents as a "colateral damage" (The way you like to name it) is burning alive civilians and childrens.

Yes, Burnsys, and you are reading something that isn't there. It matters that it was used "as an incendiary [psychological] weapon against enemy combatants" - and it does specify that that was it's use.

I can imagine, seeing this:
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html
has a very strong phsychological impact.. We could we say it's a very efective way to TERRORIZE a whole population..

Yes

, people are arguing the legality! Did you even read the OP of this thread? - it's all about the legal ramifications! You, yourself inadvertently did so in your OP of the previous thread! (by stating that it was a chemical weapon) That it was inadvertent doesn't change the fact that you said it and people responded to it, and several people agreed to it

The fact that it's legal doesn't change the fact that civilians and childrens are being burned alive.

. Further, those who argue that WP is being intentionally used to kill enemy combatants are arguing that the US committed an illegal act.

Stope guesing what other people are arguing, just read the post literaly and not making strawmen.

Yes, Skyhunter, I recognize that the primary purpose for many here is to hightlight that war is hell and use that as a basis for random USA bashing

It's not random, it's well founded and very specific.

(after all - how much worse is being burned to death by WP than, say, burning alive in your shot-up truck?),

You are right! especialy when you bomb a Truck caravan of civilians beliving saddam houseing was in one of the trucks.

Just to be clear - I am only concerned with the specific legal issues

of course, it's the only way you can justify so horrible atrocities.
So the The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.. I wonder why.

But when you start in with the rhetoric on an issue that does have some factual points to it, that's when we have the problem.

There isn't even 1 fact in all your posts!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No you actually closed it after a post of mine claiming my statement 'that even the battalion doctor joined in the fun dropping HE and WP shells on Fallujah. was ridiculous; I provided the proof which you were good enough to append to the locked thread but you didn't reopen the thread whilst I imagine many people here would have liked to comment on that piece.
The support for closing the thread wouldn't have come from the same people who have now been proven wrong with their assertion that "WP was not used as an incendiary weapon in Fallujah" would it?

The article in the OP only adresses one of the objections that we had about your claims; that WP was fired at targets. We, or at least I, asked for the proof that it was fired at targets. Now you have proof of at least this. The problem is that we already knew and agreed that WP smoke was used against the combatents. Smoke bombs are incediaries in that they burn in order to create smoke. Anything that burns is classified as an incendiary. Anything that produces smoke most likely burns and therefore is an incendiary. Our point is whether or not the devices used were designed to burn their targets really. We don't see why there is an issue with whether or not some WP may have gotten onto and burned some of the enemy combatents as a side effect if the soldiers were just going to shoot and kill them one moment later.

The other point of contention was the effect on the civilian population. I believe we all agreed that the collateral damage seen due to the use of WP so extensively was unacceptable. The only point which most of us took issue with was here...

...the US thugs who entered Fallujah deliberately killed civilians and those who fired ordinance in from the outside didn't give a **** who they killed.

The idea that US forces intentionally targeted and intentionally killed civilians and did not care if they killed civilains.
All else aside I don't doubt that this was the major bone anyone had to pick with what you had to say.

 

[Evo]

Read it again, this was actually done in the softening up phase before the battle proper had even started.

I will reread it to see when it took place. If it happened afterwards, you have to buy me dinner.

The problem I see is issues are raised and instead of discussing the issue many of us have to defend the fact that the issue exists!

That's because of how the issue is raised, that's what I am trying to improve.

Now if you can prevent this obstruction to sensible debate from the far-right or overly nationalistic amongst us I'm sure the quality of the threads will improve.

(None of the following is about you, btw.) It's not the issues, but how they are presented. "BUSH BURNS BABIES!" is not the way to start a topic or present an issue. All it does is form dividing lines and the rocks and mud start flying and nothing is accomplished. It's just a bunch of bickering. People's defenses go up, if you had any intention of getting through to someone that doesn't think like you, you blew it.

This has got to stop.

 

[Mercator]

Not that I advocate the use of incendiary weapons for anything other than clearing foliage, but I can understand what Fred is saying. Is being shredded to pieces by hundreds of flying shards of jagged metal from a traditional bomb really much better than being burned alive by flammable gels and gases from an incendiary bomb? Both test the limits of the human pain threshold if they don't kill you.
Anyway, before someone jumps on me for being such a USA homer, I'm not commenting either way on the legality or morality of these actions. This is just a quick quip. Feel free to ignore it.

I agree that there are many terrible methods to kill people. The banning of some weapons may be arbitrary and more based on emotions than on scientific facts. Yet there is no protest if the Saudis decapitate opponents, but there is a (justified) outcry when Saddam uses Sulphuric acid to spary on his opponents. The method DOES count.
Again, the core of the matter discussed here, is why the US thinks it is ok to ignore this: Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons."
And then Americans whine about the UN being powerless??

 

[loseyourname]

The UN certainly thinks so and I thought the US did too. I seem to remember back in the distant past that Saddam's possesion of UN banned weapons was at one time the reason given by the US for the invasion of Iraq.
With regard to this particular issue there is a huge difference between a well aimed shot at an insurgent and the use of an indiscriminate weapon in a civilian area. The first is war the second is mass murder.
p.s. As you can see Evo I am now having to argue that this even is an issue.

Actually, you're ignoring the last part of my post specifically saying that I was in no way trying to comment on whether or not this is or should be an issue. In fact, I put in this disclaimer in large part because I had a feeling that you, specifically, would jump on me for it. It seems you've lumped me into this naive, blind, nationalist conspiracy and automatically interpret everything I say as a defense of US policy. For the most part, I hate US policy, though I don't comment much on the things brought up in this forum because I'm more concerned with local and domestic events than international.

 

[loseyourname]

Again, the core of the matter discussed here, is why the US thinks it is ok to ignore this: Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons."
And then Americans whine about the UN being powerless??

Well, there is the obvious out that the US is not making civilian populations the object of attack. That's contingent upon the word 'attack' excluding accidental damage, but still, it does do so. Then again, as you've pointed out, the fact that a particular act is legal doesn't make it right. Obviously, the spirit of this law is to shield civilians from having to suffer the effects of these weapons.

 

[Mercator]

Well, there is the obvious out that the US is not making civilian populations the object of attack. That's contingent upon the word 'attack' excluding accidental damage, but still, it does do so. Then again, as you've pointed out, the fact that a particular act is legal doesn't make it right. Obviously, the spirit of this law is to shield civilians from having to suffer the effects of these weapons.

I'm more looking at " It is prohibited under all circumstances ". That would include attacks where the chances for colateral damage are high, no?

 

[Art]

The article in the OP only adresses one of the objections that we had about your claims; that WP was fired at targets. We, or at least I, asked for the proof that it was fired at targets. Now you have proof of at least this. The problem is that we already knew and agreed that WP smoke was used against the combatents. Smoke bombs are incediaries in that they burn in order to create smoke. Anything that burns is classified as an incendiary. Anything that produces smoke most likely burns and therefore is an incendiary. Our point is whether or not the devices used were designed to burn their targets really. We don't see why there is an issue with whether or not some WP may have gotten onto and burned some of the enemy combatents as a side effect if the soldiers were just going to shoot and kill them one moment later.
The other point of contention was the effect on the civilian population. I believe we all agreed that the collateral damage seen due to the use of WP so extensively was unacceptable. The only point which most of us took issue with was here...
The idea that US forces intentionally targeted and intentionally killed civilians and did not care if they killed civilains.
All else aside I don't doubt that this was the major bone anyone had to pick with what you had to say.

Here's why I think what I do.

1) WP is an indicriminate weapon. It's kill radius is very large.
2) Fallujah is a civilian city using indiscriminate weapons kills civilians which just brings us back to the 'are they stupid or just not care' discussion.
3) Once the city was ringed many civilians were not allowed to leave before the assault began
4) The US claimed to have killed ~1200 insurgents. There is no way to prove or disprove this figure but the circumstantial evidence suggests differently. The insurgents claim most of them left when they knew an assault was coming. The insurgents have a cemetary especially for fighters killed. They added only 95 bodies after the assault on Fallujah
5) Pictures of dead civilians including babies.
6) In the previous assault on Fallujah 600 civilians were killed. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-11-fallujah-casualties_x.htm
7) Pictures of Iraqis shot dead in their beds in their homes.

The above paints a picture of an army on a killing spree. If it's not like it looks then it is up to the military to prove otherwise and their recent litany of lies in relation to their use of WP certainly doesn't do their credibility any good.

 

[Mercator]

This says it better:
Kathy Kelly, a campaigner with the anti-war group Voices of the Wilderness, said: "If the US wants to promote security for this generation and the next, it should build relationships with these countries. If the US uses conventional or non-conventional weapons, in civilian neighourhoods, that melt people's bodies down to the bone, it will leave these people seething. We should think on this rather than arguing about whether we can squeak such weapons past the Geneva Conventions and international accords."
Leave out the melting body image and you have a very precise statement of the issue. Now is that anti-American ranting? No, it's a disucssion on an issue that should lead to a better use of American power in the world.

 

[Evo]

This says it better:
Kathy Kelly, a campaigner with the anti-war group Voices of the Wilderness, said: "If the US wants to promote security for this generation and the next, it should build relationships with these countries. If the US uses conventional or non-conventional weapons, in civilian neighourhoods, that melt people's bodies down to the bone, it will leave these people seething. We should think on this rather than arguing about whether we can squeak such weapons past the Geneva Conventions and international accords."
Leave out the melting body image and you have a very precise statement of the issue. Now is that anti-American ranting? No, it's a disucssion on an issue that should lead to a better use of American power in the world.

Now *that's* the kind of post I would like to see here.

It's not inflammatory. It addresses the issue. It makes an intelligent proposal and backs up the reasoning behind it.

This is the type of post that would make someone stop and think instead of just lashing out.

 

[Mercator]

Now *that's* the kind of post I would like to see here.

I wish I always could be to the point like this, but that's a problem when English in fact only your third language. I see that with many posters here, which does not mean that they have nothing to say.

 

[jimmie]

the fact that a particular act is legal doesn't make it right

Now is that anti-American ranting? No, it's a disucssion on an issue that should lead to a better use of American power in the world.

Unfortunately, 'Amercian power', with the intent to preserve itself, has chosen that it is better to consistently do actions that are "legal", regardless if those actions are "right".

 

[Evo]

I wish I always could be to the point like this, but that's a problem when English in fact only your third language. I see that with many posters here, which does not mean that they have nothing to say.

You speak English so well, it's hard not to think of you as American.

 

[kat]

Mercator...makes a a statement regarding the legality of the United states using WP.

outlawed by the UN ,

I ask him to clarify which U.N. law it is that makes it unlawful..

Yes, yes..I think this is probably the key to the whole subject. Please...quote the applicable U.N. "law" in regards to WP.
Oh, and while you're at it..maybe you should also find a good definition of what a U.N. Protocal is and how and to whom it applies.

Then Skyhunter..you reply:

No one is arguing the legality

Skyhunter, evidently you're selectively reading because you appear to have missed Mercators statement regarding the legality of the use of WP. It can not be outlawed unless there is a law against it.. whether anyone is arguing the legality I don't know..but I do know I've requested Mercator to quote the applicable law that makes it outlawed. Once he's done that I might want to argue the legality..but until he does..it's really a mute point as far as I'm concerned.

In what way was what I said obfuscation? You were making the claim that the use of WP is not illegal, and by implication, that there is nothing wrong with it.

You appear to be confused..therefore, I mispoke..it's not obfuscation..it's ignorance. You were obviously ignorant of the fact that...I..was not.. the person making a claim...Mercator is the person who made a claim.

Read the links. If you want to discuss the UN protocol, please go ahead and start your own thread. Good try though.

You are the one who brought them up..and yet you appear to not understand how they are applied and which are binding and which are not and in what matter they are and to whom..or you would not have said it was "outlawed by the U.N."

 

[loseyourname]

I'm more looking at " It is prohibited under all circumstances ". That would include attacks where the chances for colateral damage are high, no?

You have to look at what is prohibited under all circumstances, and that is making civilians the target of an attack. In other words, there are no circumstances in which it is legal for an army to make a civilian population the object of an incendiary attack. It says nothing whatsoever of doing anything else that has an effect on a civilian population, however, such as unintentionally burning them with weapons targeted at some other group.

Now that you mention English is your third language, I think it's understandable that you misunderstand this. Word order is extremely important in English syntax.

That said, I don't want to get too into the legality claim, because that just brings us back to my original point from the other thread. It seems like the opponents of US policy want to make too strong of a claim, and in doing so, they end up weakening their own case. For instance, it is highly unlikely that the US actually broke any law here, so trying to advance that claim is probably going to fail. In failing, however, we ignore the larger issue that civilian populations are being killed and severely mained by US actions. This is something that needs to be minimized, if not completely stopped (which is just unrealistic), regardless of whether or not it is legal. Even if we cannot bring charges against the military for this, they should still revisit and change the way they approach tactical situations in an urban setting. There is reasoned discussion to be had on this issue, but screaming "war crime" (not to say that you are, but the ones that do are the ones that are heard loudest) is not it.

 

[Mercator]

Mercator...makes a a statement regarding the legality of the United states using WP.
I ask him to clarify which U.N. law it is that makes it unlawful..
Then Skyhunter..you reply:
Skyhunter, evidently you're selectively reading because you appear to have missed Mercators statement regarding the legality of the use of WP. It can not be outlawed unless there is a law against it.. whether anyone is arguing the legality I don't know..but I do know I've requested Mercator to quote the applicable law that makes it outlawed. Once he's done that I might want to argue the legality..but until he does..it's really a mute point as far as I'm concerned.
You appear to be confused..therefore, I mispoke..it's not obfuscation..it's ignorance. You were obviously ignorant of the fact that...I..was not.. the person making a claim...Mercator is the person who made a claim.
You are the one who brought them up..and yet you appear to not understand how they are applied and which are binding and which are not and in what matter they are and to whom..or you would not have said it was "outlawed by the U.N."

Quote of my own:
Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons." You mean outlawed is not the same as prohibited? OK, you win, can we go on now?
And again if you want to derail the thread into a lecture on the workings of the UN: not with me.

 

[Mercator]

You have to look at what is prohibited under all circumstances, and that is making civilians the target of an attack. In other words, there are no circumstances in which it is legal for an army to make a civilian population the object of an incendiary attack. It says nothing whatsoever of doing anything else that has an effect on a civilian population, however, such as unintentionally burning them with weapons targeted at some other group.
Now that you mention English is your third language, I think it's understandable that you misunderstand this. Word order is extremely important in English syntax.
That said, I don't want to get too into the legality claim, because that just brings us back to my original point from the other thread. It seems like the opponents of US policy want to make too strong of a claim, and in doing so, they end up weakening their own case. For instance, it is highly unlikely that the US actually broke any law here, so trying to advance that claim is probably going to fail. In failing, however, we ignore the larger issue that civilian populations are being killed and severely mained by US actions. This is something that needs to be minimized, if not completely stopped (which is just unrealistic), regardless of whether or not it is legal. Even if we cannot bring charges against the military for this, they should still revisit and change the way they approach tactical situations in an urban setting. There is reasoned discussion to be had on this issue, but screaming "war crime" (not to say that you are, but the ones that do are the ones that are heard loudest) is not it.

If civilians are in an area and that area is attacked with these weapons, then they are de facto the target of the operation. Not the primary target, but a target none the less.
But I agree, let's leave the legal discussion to the lawyers. My point is still, why on Earth does the US not ratify the UN protocol? Why does the most powerful army in the world have to use these weapons, don't they have better, less controversial means? In a way, by using these things, the US military demonstrates it's weakness: as long as a war can be waged on a high technological level, no problem, but when it comes down to direct confrontation, it seems that the dedication of the enemy can only be broken by using this kind of weapons. Now, even if you're a hardliner is THAT the message you want to send to the enemy? Do you want them to copy you and start using napalm-like substances in addition to car- and suicide bombs?
These suicide bombers don't care if innocent bystanders are killed when they attack their targets. That's barbaric. We should not do the same.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Frowned upon by whom?

Civilised nations who don't use it (i.e. pretty much everyone except America).

Again, so what? That nitpicking over terminology doesn't change how it was actually used.

No, but your description of it is chosen to obfuscate how it was used. By terming it a 'psychological weapon' it is clear that you are attempting to mislead people into thinking it did not physical harm, or was used in a way that physical harm was not a natural consequence.

Well, kinda, but close enough.

No, dead on. Again, you might protest that it was aimed at 'the hole containing the people' but however you put it, it was used against people.

Au contraire. While some are not explicit, some - most importantly the person who started this thread - are explicit that they believe that the US is intentionally killing peope with WP. So you (and patty, and others) need to be more precise in your statements of your opinions because you have not, until now, made that distinction clear.

You couldn't have missed my point more. I was not defending anyone when I said no-one is saying it is used to kill people - I was attacking the US military! I was saying THEY are not coming out and stating how it is used without spin.

Burnsys started this thread, so by arguing for his position without making it clear that you don't share his opinion, it is your fault if your opinion is misunderstood.

That's a typical black and white view, like Republican and Democrat, good guys and bad guys, with us or against us. It's also utter BS. I'm not arguing anyone's position but my own. I'm not obliged to second guess what conclusions you'll jump to just to rationalise your position. Go ahead. You might feel better but you sure as hell won't convince anyone but yourself.

You shoot yourself in the foot when you say things like that. While politically we are polar opposites, I know you are easily intelligent enough to argue your position convincingly. Telling me that if I don't state what my argument isn't then you are justified in assuming my argument is something I haven't stated is too easy. For me, that is.

It makes a big difference, under the law, what the intent was. The intent and the specifics of the legal definitions are the main reason we are discussing this issue!

It has already been stated several times by both sides of the argument that there is no legal reason the US military should not use WP. The point is it is now clear that they are using it in a way prohibited by pretty much the rest of the international community. In other words, it's barbaric.

Just so everyone else is crystal clear on what side you are arguing, this is what Burnsys is arguing, and if you don't agree, you need to say so before arguing on his behalf: To paraphrase, Burnsys believes that the US is intentionally killing enemy combatants with WP and may be intentionally killing civilians with it.

That wasn't my original argument at all, but okay I'll bite. If the US military is using a weapon on people, for whatever justification, that they know will almost certainly kill those or some of those people, then yes they are intentionally killing "enemy combatants". Your argument is wholly based on the fact that no-one in the military is admitting using WP for the purpose of killing ECs. It's not much of an argument.

I'll go one further, and you'll either love or hate this. Since "enemy combatants" is the term used by the US to describe anyone it wants to treat in a manner that, were they recognised as soldiers or civilians, would be prohibited, then since they are using WP against, at the very least, "enemy combatants", they are using it against civilians. Albeit civilians with bombs. And probably civilians without bombs too.

=====================================================

This just about sums it up, I think:

We don't see why there is an issue with whether or not some WP may have gotten onto and burned some of the enemy combatents as a side effect if the soldiers were just going to shoot and kill them one moment later.

Who here agrees with this? Should it be OK to burn someone alive if you intend to shoot them anyway?

 

[Art]

BTW for the self proclaimed chemistry expert who ridiculed my claim that WP produces an exothermic reaction when in contact with water; here's what the US gov't says

If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone." As it oxidises, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke "releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces...

also

White phosphorus is fat-soluble

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1642575,00.html

Here's another interesting quote from the same article

Saddam, facing a possible death sentence, is accused of mass murder, torture, false imprisonment and the use of chemical weapons. He is certainly guilty on all counts. So, it now seems, are those who overthrew him.

 

[Gokul43201]

You speak English so well, it's hard not to think of you as American.

(cough) Of course you meant : "You speak English so well, it's hard to think of you as American."

 

[kat]

Quote of my own:
Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons." You mean outlawed is not the same as prohibited? OK, you win, can we go on now?
And again if you want to derail the thread into a lecture on the workings of the UN: not with me.

It's only prohibited if you've ratified it. The united States has not signed it. If you want to argue using lies and rhetoric you should not be surprised when someone challenges you to support your statements. If you want to argue on a purely moral ground then don't make hyperbolic statements regarding the United States breaking laws that don't exist.

 

[Art]

It's only prohibited if you've ratified it. The united States has not signed it.

Nobody has claimed the US signed the protocol so why not drop this silly strawman argument.

If you want to argue using lies and rhetoric you should not be surprised when someone challenges you to support your statements.

Duh... What is this irrelevant rant about?

If you want to argue on a purely moral ground then don't make hyperbolic statements regarding the United States breaking laws that don't exist.

There is a world outside the US and in that world there are laws so the laws do exist. The fact that America chose not to sign up to them and flouts the international will of civilised countries as expressed in the quoted UN protocols does not make their actions any less reprehensible.

The statement about flouting the international will might be familiar to you. It was used often when the US were justifying the invasion of Iraq.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Seconded. Atrocities are atrocities, legal or not. The right-wingers keep coming back to the fact that it is legal, presumably because they cannot argue the basic issue that it is barbaric. Oh, and that the US lied about its use in the first and second places.

 

[kat]

Nobody has claimed the US signed the protocol so why not drop this silly strawman argument. Duh... What is this irrelevant rant about? There is a world outside the US and in that world there are laws so the laws do exist. The fact that America chose not to sign up to them and flouts the international will of civilised countries as expressed in the quoted UN protocols does not make their actions any less reprehensible.
The statement about flouting the international will might be familiar to you. It was used often when the US were justifying the invasion of Iraq.

Hello...maybe you should follow the thread..his rant was that it was unlawful..."outlawed". It is only prohibited by a treaty..which if not ratified does not prohibit the use of. The U.S. did not ratify the protocal. It is not illegal. Again, as I stated above, if he wants to argue on a moral ground..fine..he did not. This type of response, combined with that I displayed previously with several replies by various members showing a lack of ability to respond to what's being debated is why this forum has degraded to the point that it's a laughing stock. I do wish Evo would clean it up as she continues to say she will.

Having said this, if all agree no "law" was broken and the protocal is not applicable on a legal basis, then I'm very glad to drop the matter.

 

[kat]

Seconded. Atrocities are atrocities, legal or not. The right-wingers keep coming back to the fact that it is legal, presumably because they cannot argue the basic issue that it is barbaric. Oh, and that the US lied about its use in the first and second places.

I don't know why the "right wingers" keep coming back to anything...I do know that my question on what "law" made it "outlawed" is what came to this discussion. So, perhap.."right wingers" keep coming back to the fact it is legal is because the "left wingers" keep charging that it is illegal. Lying brings refutation. It's a bit deceptive to lie and then charge the person who refutes that lie to be doing anything other then..correcting the lie.

 

[Skyhunter]

I ask him to clarify which U.N. law it is that makes it unlawful..
Then Skyhunter..you reply:

No one is arguing the legality

Skyhunter, evidently you're selectively reading because you appear to have missed Mercators statement regarding the legality of the use of WP. It can not be outlawed unless there is a law against it.. whether anyone is arguing the legality I don't know..but I do know I've requested Mercator to quote the applicable law that makes it outlawed. Once he's done that I might want to argue the legality..but until he does..it's really a mute point as far as I'm concerned."

It's use is outlawed by the UN, Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Since the US is not a signatory no one here is arguing that the US did anything illegal.

Is that so hard to understand?