PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: clips on November 16, 2005, 12:08:53 PM
-
don\'t know what to make of this....if it\'s true you can call the u.s. the biggest hypocrite in the world...well they did supply iraq with chemical weapons in the early 80\'s.....read.....
http://www.yahoo.com/s/244788
-
it was used within war guidelines
they deserved it anyways
bush eats iraq babies too, read it on the intarweb!
-
Originally posted by mm
it was used within war guidelines
they deserved it anyways
bush eats iraq babies too, read it on the intarweb!
c,mon, mm even if they deserved it, the u.s. popped so much s**t about chemical weapons... and then they turn around and use them?...in iraq no less? i guess we\'ll now know where the wmd\'s and chemical weapons are comin from when the u.s. finally decide to say that they\'ve found them....
-
it is an incendiary type weapon
it\'s not anthrax
:rolleyes:
-
That sounds bad, but its like telling your children not to do something and then turn around and do it, showing them a bad example.
-
no, it\'s not
here\'s an idea, how about not letting the liberal media tell you what to think?
-
I thought I read that white phosphorous only caused burns and pain and discomfort like tear gas and doesn\'t actually kill them. It also ignites when mixed with oxygen...
Eh...
As far as these assholes are concerned, I wouldn\'t care if the US did WMD\'d their ass...
-
Just re-read it...
Tsk tsk, clips...
You forgot these parts:
"white phosphorus is not outlawed or banned by any convention."
" They are not considered chemical weapons."
I don\'t see how different it is from a conventional weapon...
-
cause omgz the medias tells us its hiphopcrasi or something!!!1
-
White phosforus has many \'regular\' uses, flashbang type use, for blinding opponents, night illumination of outdoor areas, as well as it\'s use as a napalm-like weapon that consumes anyone unfortunate enough to be where it\'s dropped.
The gist of this problem is that *some* sources are reporting that they basically carpeted certain areas of certain cities, using it in it\'s most \'offensive\' style, and didn\'t worry about collateral damage. On the other hand, other sources say that they were carefull to target it at known locations of enemies, and use it in it\'s more conventional bliding/illuminating roles.
We all know that the fanatics they\'re fighting down there have no problem forcing innocents to shelter them, so I\'m not particularily surprised when I read about high collateral damage. As long as they\'re *trying* to avoid civilian casualties (unlike terrorists, who are trying explicitly to cause civilian casualties) then we maintain our high moral ground.
--
For some reason the term \'chemical weapon\' in this case has been coopted to phosphorus as it is so \'obviously\' a chemical. But this is not a \'chemical weapon\'. Nerve agents, biotoxins are chemical weapons, and generally they\'re the non-directible WMD variety that are classified as \'chemical weapons\'. HE (high explosives) and bullets are made with \'chemicals\' too, but it\'s just a matter of pointing out that white phosphorus is not a WMD, but rather an incidiary explosive.
-
silly me....i didn\'t know you had to click on that title to actually see the rest of the article :)...nevertheless anyone that read the article can clearly see that they used this stuff in a way that would seem chemical in nature.....meh it states that this was the only way to flush out the insurgents...whatever....i don\'t see why conventional weapons couldn\'t have brought about the same conclusion....
after reading the article tho there is one thing that i do not agree with and that is that the u.s. intentionally is usin\' these weapons on innocent civilians....
-
its like a step above tear gas chill brotha
-
innocent civilians?
who the hell is innocent when any man, woman, or child possibly has a bomb strapped to thier chest?
-
That would make you guilty.
-
i moved to downtown baghdad?
why didn\'t anyone tell me!
-
Another attempt by the liberal media to undermine this country and the Iraqi war. How surprising.
-
Well seeing as I didn\'t read it then this is a stupid article by all causes, liberal media wins again.
-
u.s. states using chemical weapons in iraw?!
U.S. States?
You do know what USA stands for right?
-
Originally posted by (e)
U.S. States?
You do know what USA stands for right?
whoops...my bad! :D...but you spelled iraq wrong!....;)
-
Originally posted by mm
i moved to downtown baghdad?
why didn\'t anyone tell me!
No. Think about it.
-
think about why noone told me i moved to downtown baghdad?
:confused:
-
First depleted uranium, now this...
Sometimes I think it\'s just a cheaper solution for the government to get rid
of all that stuff without having to adhere to all kinds of domestic chemics regulations...:rolleyes:
-
If that were true, then we would be carpet bombing iraq with Canadians.
-
A clearer perspective on the white phosphorous issue and the sticky mess Iraq is becoming:
Reaching for the moral low ground
Nov 17th 2005 | BAGHDAD
From The Economist print edition
America\'s promotion of democracy and human rights looks awkward
A VILE discovery and a grave allegation apparently backed up by hideous photographic evidence have made the United States look hypocritical in its promotion of democracy and human rights in the Middle East. The discovery, by America\'s own troops, was of 173 starving prisoners, some tortured, in a building run by America\'s allies in Iraq\'s interior ministry. The grave allegation concerned the use, by American soldiers when they recaptured the rebel town of Fallujah last year, of white phosphorus. Did the Americans flout the rules governing the use of chemical weapons, one reason for ousting Saddam Hussein?
That Iraq\'s security forces habitually mistreat suspected insurgents is no secret. People in Sunni Arab districts, where the insurgency is rooted, say that they are sometimes arrested en masse by units conducting counter-insurgency sweeps and held in bad conditions and beaten, before being freed with a warning to “stop supporting terrorists”. There are also reports of sophisticated and systematic torture by some Iraqi units and of assassinations by death-squads, often connected to the ministry of interior, which in turn is dominated by the Iran-backed Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the strongest Shia Arab party in the coalition government. Both American and Iraqi government officials readily concede they are worried by human-rights abuses by Iraqi forces. So far, however, little has been done to rein them in or charge any of them.
This may change. The prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who heads the Dawa party, the main Shia rival to SCIRI within the ruling coalition, has promised an internal investigation; Sunni politicians have demanded an international inquiry. The interior minister, Bayan Jaber, a SCIRI man, is a particular bugbear of Sunnis, who say that SCIRI militias are taking revenge on behalf of Iran for the war Mr Hussein unleashed against it from 1980-88.
The scandal over prisoners may sharpen enmity between Dawa and SCIRI, as the two parties stake claims for more powerful cabinet posts in the election run-up. How the Shias address allegations of abuse will strongly influence Sunnis. If the latter believe they have a secure place in a new Iraq, they may start distancing themselves from the insurgency; if they come to believe they are just another persecuted minority, they will still back it.
The white phosphorus scandal is more complicated. The military use of the stuff for illuminating the sky during a night attack or for creating a smokescreen to cover an infantry or tank attack is generally regarded as acceptable. The Pentagon says it was used in those ways during its successful assault on Fallujah late last year.
What is widely considered unacceptable, however, though perhaps not technically illegal, is the use of white phosphorus (“willy pete”, in military lingo) to winkle insurgents out of bunkers and foxholes by means of “shake and burn”. Moreover, filmshots shown on one of Italy\'s state-owned TV channels suggested that civilians were horribly burned by the stuff during the siege. If it was deliberately or negligently used in a manner that was bound to cause many civilian casualties, that would be a war crime.
Using white phosphorus as a weapon (as opposed to a smokescreen) will be widely seen as breaching the spirit of a treaty—one that restricts “certain conventional weapons” deemed particularly cruel—to which America is party, even though it hasn\'t ratified the articles dealing specifically with incendiary materials.
Exactly how the phosphorus was used, what the orders were or from how high up the chain of command they may have come, is not yet known. But it is clear that the Pentagon has some awkward explaining to do—and must come clean if the Americans are to claim the moral high ground in their war against terrorism.
As for the behaviour of the Iraqi government and its security forces, the American conundrum is trickier. On the one hand, the Americans must give the elected government its head, for fear of making it look like a stooge. On the other, they cannot look the other way if human-rights abuses are committed that match those perpetrated by Mr Hussein\'s regime. The hope is that the emerging Iraqi authorities will seek out those who maltreated the 173 suspects and bring them to account. But this seems unlikely if SCIRI remains the strongest arm of Iraq\'s government.