US Troops Used Chemical Weapons In Fallujah

I have no problem with it. US should have never agreed to classifying it as a chemical agent. It is a important tool in our arsenal.

 

People are burned to death in warfare, due to UNCOUNTABLE causes. Which are the "humane" causes of deadly fire?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that's because you have the problem of being on OUR SIDE in the war against the islamists.

 

WP is banned and we agreed on not using it as a weapon.

I never said it equated the US to terrorists, what I said was we had to maintain a standard above the terrorists.

And personally, I think a nice .308 round to the melon covers it pretty nice.

- - - Updated - - -

People are burned to death in war, yeah it happens.

But we should not use a weaponized WP to do it intentionally. We agreed not to, we said we wouldn't, and doing so is a war crime. We stopped using napalm as well.

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/11/17/pentagon_reverses_position_and_admits_u

 

Total BULLCRAP.

We should use whatever is EFFECTIVE against our enemy, and if the situation calls for WP, we should USE IT, to protect OUR TROOPS, and KILL THE ENEMY= the POINT of warfare.

 

So you want american troops to use the same methods as the jihadist terrorists?

So you agree with their methods?

 

Liberals expect us to fight wars like the game of Risk where everyone gets the same and equal chance of winning.

- - - Updated - - -

Show the cite that proves that it's been banned or shut up about it.

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

 

I expect our military to honor is agreements and refrain from using chemical weapons.

Perhaps if you bothered to read the article posted.

 

Source for the ATTACK AMERICA piece:

George Montbiot: World socialist sympathizer, anti-America columnist, called the cleaning out of the terrorist infestation of Fallujah, a "Hidden Holocaust".

Mauizio Torrealta: Italian communist, who once accused the US of dropping a "nuclear bomb" on Basra.


Neither has EVER WRITTEN A SYLLABLE CRITICAL of the ISLAMISTS.

YOUR SOURCES.

Now, who exactly, would "fit in" with our enemy?

 

Ignoring the fact that the pentagon admitted to it and the interviews with military officials.

Keep trying.

mod edit>>>off topic/PA<<<

 

According to the reporting that is already cited in this post.

I've know about this for years. It's one more regrettable incident in the tragic disaster that was Mr Bush's splendid little war.

I do not say this by way of condemming the men (and women) we sent to fight that war. It's was their bosses that were the problem.

 

Was what I said that complicated ?

"Willie-Pete is not a chemical weapon". I said nothing about is being a "war crime", although I could reject that definition as well. That it may violate some agreement not to use WP is an entirely different matter !!!

Reading is fundamental !

 

Honesty even more so. Sadly lacking in the rancid diatribe so typical of barrack-room lawyers worldwide, excusing the inexcusible with misrepresentation. WP is a chemical weapon, that is why the broken argeement was made.

 

High explosives are chemicals as well.

 

Explosives don't cling and burn targets to death likened to napalm.

 

Provide any official statement from the U.S. government/military that they used DP as an offensive incendiary weapon rather than as its intended use as a flare.

 

No (*)(*)(*)(*). When I served, we did use napalm. We did use WP. In fact, we even had WP grenades, tricky bastards that they were as they had a blast radius wider than you could throw them !!

I am fine with using such on our enemies.

 

Weak source, no real confirmation of factual accuracy about using the weapons, and source is Democracy Now which doesn't help.

BUT, I wouldn't be surprised if it's true. What's pathetic is these right wingers on here who are being more timid about this since it happened in 2005 under Bush. If this had happened in 2008 or after these same right wing hypocrites would have blamed Obama for the chemicals being used against Iraqis.

 

White phosphorous is probably the most effective source for smoke screens known. The issue is therefore the use of it as an anti-personnel weapon. It's use against military targets, is not explicitly banned by any treaty. In the case of Fallujah, it may have been used to "motivate" the insurgents from moving out of their fortifications which high explosives were less effective in accomplishing. The white phosphorous rounds create lots of smoke and fire, this tends to get the bad guys moving. Once moving, more conventional weapons can be used to terminate with extreme prejudice. While I don't necessarily condone the use of WP rounds in civilian populated areas, I fail to see what the issue is in using against military targets...I'll say again, it is not explicitly banned by any treaty. Is it nasty stuff, yes it is, but it's not explicitly banned.

 

If you look in the OP you can find that statement.

 

And we have since agreed not to use both.

I thank you for the service and defense of this great nation. I am sorry though that you had to use such weapons.

 

I do not need your sympathy with regard to the weapons of my time. However, as this is not just a legal argument, but also a moral one, my point is that the morality of its usage does not bother many of us precisely because we used it legally in times past. I have no trouble with its use now as well, although I understand its not a PC weapon.

 

We used to use napalm, carpet bombing, and agent orange.

It wasn't right then, it isn't right now.

 

Agent Orange was a defoliant, it was never weaponized.

 

Create strawman, then slay strawman.

If you would take the time to read, you would see that most "right wingers" are fine with WP. And napalm.

"Cause napalm sticks to kids".

[video=youtube;rdO3TwO92QM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdO3TwO92QM[/video]