Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’
Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’
To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren’t technically “chemical weapons.”
The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions” that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.”
But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature. A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:
IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]
IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.
In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies.
The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon’s legalistic parsings. The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a “terribly ill-conceived method,” demonstrating an Army interested “only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun.” And the dishonest efforts by Bush administration officials to deny and downplay that use only further undermines U.S. credibility abroad.
To paraphrase President Bush, this isn’t a question about what is legal, it’s about what is right.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
It’s snowing!
November 21st, 2005 at 3:37 pmThat is an AMAZING catch! Who was the first to find this?
November 21st, 2005 at 3:45 pmYou’re right it is about what’s right, and what is right is giving the guys in the field all the tools to do the job. Those guys were in fights for their lives, it’s easy for armchair generals to critisize them, but in combat you do what you got to do to survive. I don’t think that this was used against civilians intentionally. The other thing to understand in a guerilla war not everyone wears a uniform. What an Italian Communist calls a “civilian” may just be an insurgent. From what I’ve read about Falluja there weren’t many civilians in the town when the bulk of the fighting was going down.
November 21st, 2005 at 3:46 pmOops, I guess it gets hard to keep track of
November 21st, 2005 at 3:47 pmall the lies you tell after a while.
Just because they don’t classify it as a chemical weapon, doesn’t mean that it’s not a chemical weapon.
“Willy Pete” is usually used as an illumination device, but it is a chemical, and when it’s used as a weapon, as in Fallujah, that makes it a “chemical weapon”.
But as we know, up is down, war is peace, and 2+2=46.
Distorting facts is also a weapon.
November 21st, 2005 at 3:49 pm« What an Italian Communist calls a “civilian†may just be an insurgent. »
Yeah, some of those burned-up bodies of babies, toddlers, and children were really midget insurgents.
November 21st, 2005 at 3:52 pm“And the dishonest efforts by Bush administration officials to deny and downplay that use only further undermines U.S. credibility abroad.”
You mean the Bush Administration actually had credibility to undermine in the first place? I learn something new every day.
November 21st, 2005 at 3:55 pmNico, if you are the first to have “rediscovered” this declassified document (as my quick googling seems to indicate) you definitely need to add that information to this post.
It really helps to make sure that other web sites linking to this post realize that they can genuinely cite this information as a new discovery.
November 21st, 2005 at 3:56 pmhttp://dahrjamailiraq.com/index.php
November 21st, 2005 at 3:59 pmhttp://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/
Do as I Say! Not as I Do!
November 21st, 2005 at 4:02 pm“In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies.”
That’s right. For some strange reason there are a few people in the Pentagon that places America ahead of the terrorists and Saddam. I know that seems unfair to you Natural Born Losers but that’s the way it should be and that’s the way it is.
I’ve read about those WP rounds, it’s good stuff. Go USA! USA! USA!
November 21st, 2005 at 4:02 pmI just want to know where to sign up for howling ass pleasure.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:05 pmTo act like a terrorist, a dictator and an evil empire makes you one, it doesn’t defeat one. What MizzWrong and other proposals of the ‘all out war’ don’t seem to understand, is that they aren’t fighting evil - they ARE evil…
November 21st, 2005 at 4:07 pm#3, I’m a Army Veteran, and your statements are utterly rediculous.
So what your saying is that it is fine to bomb the city with a small nuclear bomb or with naepom (not sure of the correct spelling)?
This is completely agains the Geneva Convention. So instead of being a country that should lead how the world should behave, we should just throw all of our standings under the buss and forget it?
Get real.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:10 pm« That’s right. For some strange reason there are a few people in the Pentagon that places America ahead of the terrorists and Saddam. »
In other words, if Saddam uses Willie Pete, it’s a chemical weapon, but if the US uses it, it’s not.
Typical Republican logic. If a Republican lies to a Grand Jury, it’s not a crime, but if a Democrat lies to a Grand Jury, it’s perjury and an impeachable offense.
The Republican party is the party of double standards.
« I’ve read about those WP rounds, it’s good stuff. Go USA! USA! USA! »
You mean, “Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!”, don’t you?
November 21st, 2005 at 4:12 pmnew rule: if something gives you a chemical burn, then it’s a chemical weapon. simple enough, right?
November 21st, 2005 at 4:13 pm#3.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:13 pmI left a link of Images on post #9.
Have you seen it yet?
Comment #9
November 21st, 2005 at 4:14 pmIt must be really sad to think that just because you say things like, “We don’t torture” or “We didn’t use chemical weapons” that people are going to believe it.
These people are sorry excuse for Americans.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:15 pmAnd don’t forget that Rumsfeld SOLD the phospurus weapons to Saddam in the first place - in other words, it’s not OK to use them if you are no longer our enemy, in retrospect, but OK if you are our friend, buying them from us, and OK if you are us!
November 21st, 2005 at 4:21 pmThis has been known and feared by soldiers all over the world since the Crusades, it’s a little late to redefine it as a non-weapon now!
Tell you what, trolls, if you think it’s just for illumination, how about we drop it on your houses and children for Christmas?
#19
“These aren’t the ‘droids you’re looking for.”
Old Jedi mind-trick.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:24 pmI recall before BushCo invaded, the US told Iraq if they used any chemical weapons that they would be nuked. Under those rules of engagement, Iraq may now nuke DC in self-defense at any time of their choosing. Or Crawford. Hopefully that Cheney bunker is designed as well as the Osprey.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:25 pmI-RIGHT-I - That was great! I haven’t laughed that hard in a while. I love satire at work. Thanks.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:26 pmI-RIGHT-I,
As a former infantry Marine, I have been trained in the uses of WP. I can say that first, yes, we do use it as a smoke screen device.
But I can also tell you that we were trained in regards to its more viable use, that as a chemical weapon. It is extrodinairly nasty stuff. If burns and burns and burns, like an acid, as long as its in contact with oxygen.
There is no descretion between civilian and military tagets when this stuff is used.
I’m telling you, from experience, you would never wish the use of this stuff on anyone, including your enemies, if you were to ever witness what it can do.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:32 pmI guess they’re not chemical weapons if WE’RE the ones using them.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:33 pmTake a look at these Images before you lose the links.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:33 pmhttp://dahrjamailiraq.com/index.php
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/
#24 - “I’m telling you, from experience, you would never wish the use of this stuff on anyone, including your enemies, if you were to ever witness what it can do.”
I-RIGHT-I would wish it, sadly enough.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:34 pmTheir “chemical” v. non-chenical killer weapon parsing was nonsense anyway, but it’s nice to see it consigned to the ash heap.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:36 pmThe definition of a chemical weapon is not a chemical used as a weapon. It is a chemical that kills people primarily though use of its toxic properties. Explosives are chemicals. They kill people. That does not make them chemical weapons.
I do not know what to make of this Pentagon document, but it is not a smoking gun that proves the US is using chemical weapons in Iraq. It is quite possibly disingenous, self serving retoric meant to make Saddam’s actions appear worse than they were (which is sort of pointless beacuse repression is repression, and the hows and whys are a secondary concern at best). Or it could be that the person who wrote the memo didn’t know what a chemical weapon was. Or it could be an honest mistake.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:46 pmWhy should we be concern about using chemical weapons - don’t forget god is on our side so its ok. Those darn natives and their pleas for sovereignty - why is the brown ones always give us the most trouble?
November 21st, 2005 at 4:49 pm#3 « From what I’ve read about Falluja there weren’t many civilians in the town when the bulk of the fighting was going down. »
The IRC estimates that 60% of the victims of the fighting in Fallujah were women, children, and the elderly.
http://www.health-now.org/site/howatch.php?menuId=14
November 21st, 2005 at 4:50 pmEvery american should be disgusted and ashamed by this story.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:52 pm#30.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:54 pmhehehehehe. God on our side,hahahahahaha.
Health Now may not be the best “source” if you’re trying to convince someone who’s a republican. It’s like me citing Drudge as the source of my research.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:56 pmThat was meant to be funny, right?
November 21st, 2005 at 4:56 pmlolololololololololololololololol???????
Sounds like we’re fighting fire with fire.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:59 pm#35 yes - it was brutal sarcasm…
November 21st, 2005 at 5:00 pmhttp://changingminds.org/ explanations/ sift/ infer.htm#stuff
November 21st, 2005 at 5:05 pmBrutal,but necessary.
November 21st, 2005 at 5:08 pmWhy argue about what weapons are used in a war, it distracts from the idea that war sucks anyway.
November 21st, 2005 at 5:09 pmDid no one notice the BRITISH SPELLING of this supposedly Pentagon reference?
Phosphoros is not spelled phosphorous in the United States.
November 21st, 2005 at 5:12 pmSo fighting terrorism with terrorism and dictatorship with dictatorship is good? SiliconeBoob, you clearly belong to the correct political party - your brain has been firebombed!
November 21st, 2005 at 5:13 pmGeoMetro,
Don’t be so slow - you really need an engine upgrade. I can send you LOTS more - do some research for yourself you stupid lazy bastard.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ Iraq/ Story/ 0,2763,1636636,00.html
November 21st, 2005 at 5:14 pm“The definition of a chemical weapon is not a chemical used as a weapon. It is a chemical that kills people primarily though use of its toxic properties. Explosives are chemicals. They kill people. That does not make them chemical weapons.”
That’s clearly incorrect.
Mustard gas is a CHEMICAL WEAPON. It does not kill through toxicity (such as by arsenic or other nerve poison). It kills by burning the respiratory tract.
‘Incendiary’ means that it burns, but phosphorus doesn’t primarily kill through burning. It kills by burning the respiratory tract.
Notice the difference? THERE IS NONE.
November 21st, 2005 at 5:15 pmOops, phosphorus is not spelled phosphorous in the United States.
In the US chemical spelling, the ‘ous’ ending signals an adjective, not a noun.
November 21st, 2005 at 5:18 pm#42,
Well, it is not spelled either of those ways
November 21st, 2005 at 5:19 pmon my periodic table.
It is “Phosphorus” on my table and google seems
to like that spelling too.
In the end, it appears “phosphorus” is probably
November 21st, 2005 at 5:24 pmcorrect, but it is spelled the other way all
over the place particularly when paired with
“white”.
WHITE PHOSPHOR(O)US IS A CHEMICAL WEAPON IN THE US ARMY
A month later, the Army’s Chemical Warfare Service broke ground on a new chemical munitions manufacturing and storage facility named Huntsville Arsenal. Designed to supplement the production of the Army’s only other chemical manufacturing plant at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, Huntsville Arsenal was the sole manufacturer of colored smoke munitions. The facility was also noted for its vast production of gel-type incendiaries. In addition, it manufactured toxic agents such as mustard gas, phosgene, lewisite, white phosphorous, and tear gas. During WWII mor than 27 million items of chemical munitions having a total value of more than $134.5 million were produced at this war plant.
http://www.defenselink.mil/ specials/ womenhist2002/ army.html
On 29 December 1947, however, this notion was dispelled. At that time the Director of Services, Supply, and Procurement advised the Chief, Chemical Corps of the Secretary of the Army’s decision to declare the Huntsville installation excess to the needs of the Chemical Corps. The Chemical Corps then requested the Arsenal to submit plans for decontaminating the mustard gas plants and the white phosphorus plant and all the other contaminated areas on the installation. In addition, the Arsenal was to suggest plans for demilitarizing the M17 bomb and Lewisite gas.
November 21st, 2005 at 5:28 pmhttp://www.redstone.army.mil/history/studies/viii.html
OOPS, Breaking story on Abranoff on think progree, time to switch to new breaking story, and this one ought to be too good!
November 21st, 2005 at 5:28 pmI’m telling you, from experience, you would never wish the use of this stuff on anyone, including your enemies, if you were to ever witness what it can do.
Comment by Elvis
Please, spare us the details. I wouldn’t want to witness what happens when a lead projectile traveling at 3500 fpm hits human flesh. I wouldn’t want to see cold steel slice through bone, I don’t want to see any of that stuff but the fact remains our enemies will use all that and more.
Screw the Geneva convention. What ever it takes to get the Islamofascist head choppers to stand down and behave, do it. Iran is building nuclear weapons. Don’t you people know they don’t care about Western Conventions?
November 21st, 2005 at 5:49 pmEvery american should be disgusted and ashamed by this story.
Comment by LAChuck
Yeah right. We should be ashamed and disgusted at anything America does in self defense.
November 21st, 2005 at 5:51 pmActually, 3500fpm is pretty slow. That’s only about 60fps.
Bush doesn’t care about all the loose nukes in the former USSR, so why should anyone care about Iran? Cheney argued that we should drop all sanctions against them anyway.
And if you don’t care about the Geneva Convention, why should you care about any other Western Conventions?
November 21st, 2005 at 5:54 pmIRI, have you seen the news? Iraq was not an immenent threat. Therefore, we did not invade in self-defense. You have lots of other reasons (spreading democracy, fighting “them” “there”, sending a message, etc) so you don’t need pretend it’s self defense anymore.
November 21st, 2005 at 5:56 pmSo how is it if we accuse others of being evil, and then do the same things as them, this is good?
And how is attacking children, different from Osama attacking our civilians?
MizzWrong uses the IDENTICAL argument Osama used, that’s what’s rilling chilling about reichwing fascists. In his case as a ChristoFascist Opus Dei whacko, he brings the same lunacy to christianity that Osama brings to Islam. The belief that anything is ok, as long as you win.
After all, she talks about ‘western conventions’, but the most basic of those conventions is a civil society. We don’t go around chopping heads off, we don’t go around torturing, we don’t go around gassing children. That’s what the ‘evil’ people do. Or these days, otherwise known as the republicans!
November 21st, 2005 at 6:00 pm>
You mean pull out of Iraq as quickly as possible, or never invade in the first place? OK!
White phosphorous breeds terrorists. As do people like you. I wouldn’t piss in your ear if your brains were on fire.
November 21st, 2005 at 6:03 pmIn light of the U.S. military’s repeated denials as to the nature of White Phosphorus (WP) as a chemical agent, it is necessary to give some background on the U.S. Army’s development of WP during the Second World War, and with specific regard to WP’s development by the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS).
White Phosphorus was a chemical smoke agent developed primarily by the United States during World War II, and was intended to supplement other smoke agents already in use.[1] It was simultaneously apparent, however, that WP had a potential for use as an incendiary, and the CWS produced a large array of WP weapons ranging from hand grenades to 500 pound aerial bombs. In this regard, moreover, it should be noted that the CWS developed all of the incendiaries used by the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II. Therefore, insofar as the United States is concerned, the development of WP and incendiaries in general was deemed to be in the realm of chemical warfare, thus the role of the CWS in the development of these weapons.[2] As further evidence of the natural linkage of WP with chemical warfare, gas casualty treatment kits developed by the CWS specifically included remedies for exposure to WP.[3]
Therefore, given the roots of WP weaponry in the chemical warfare research and development process of the U.S. Army, it is highly disingenuous for the U.S. military today to claim that WP weapons are not chemical weapons. Indeed, as the historical record clearly shows, all incendiary weapons are chemical weapons, and were so regarded by the United States government at one time, before these historical facts became an embarassment to the justifications put forward in defense of the U.S. methods of waging war.
The U.S. Army’s official history, _The Chemical Warfare Service: From Laboratory to Field_, is highly recommended reading. In addition to a lengthy discussion of the development of WP weapons, the book also contains a number of photographs demonstrating the use of WP bombs in combat. Appendices in the book document the Army’s financial outlays in chemical warfare research and development, and should give a good idea of how systematically the CWS was supported in its endeavors. After all, the WP and other incendiary weapons used by the U.S. military today are merely refinements of the weapons developed in the 1940s.
Notes:
[1]Leo P. Brophy, Wyndham D. Miles and Rexmond C. Cochrane, _The Chemical Warfare Service: From Laboratory to Field_ (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1959), 405-6. The CWS also manufactured WP weapons to the specifications supplied by the British military.
[2]Ibid., Chapter VIII, Incendiaries, passim.
[2]Ibid., 94-95.
November 21st, 2005 at 6:06 pmi bet saddam called those kurds ‘insurgents’
November 21st, 2005 at 6:18 pm[…] The folks at Think Progress, ever eager to smear the Pentagon or the troops in order to attain some margin of domestic political gain (you see- the Pentagon is the administration, and vice versa), find a decrypted intelligence memo that calls Phosphorus a ‘chemical weapon,’ and just like that, our troops are war criminals again: […]
November 21st, 2005 at 6:20 pmBalloon Juice - blog to the moron republican retards,
No their USE of the chemical weapon made them war criminals, the memo was just one of MANY documents including several international treaties that explain WHY they’re war criminals.
You guys are such terrorists, liars and fools! You disgrace this country you hateful evil retards!
November 21st, 2005 at 6:22 pmSo, we invaded Iraq to save them from Saddam, and just like Saddam, we have now tortured and dropped chemical weapons on them.
And people out there are defending this?
November 21st, 2005 at 6:33 pmWhat’s really pathetic is the refusal of Think Progress to print the entire document which destroys his entire theory.
November 21st, 2005 at 6:47 pmThink for yourselves people!!!
Irregardless of the technical definition of WP, it is still a weapon that does not discriminate whether the person is a civilian or resistance fighers. The fact on the ground is civilians ( including woman and children )died in the Fallujah assault to avenge the killing of 4 mercenaries ( ie ‘armed civilian contractor’). And the entire city of Fallujah was levelled to the ground. Is that the war on terror or the act of terrorism??
November 21st, 2005 at 6:54 pmEno
What the hell are you talking about?
November 21st, 2005 at 6:59 pmThe use of such incendiary weapons against civilian targets is banned by international treaty.
That’s because it’s a NON-CONVENTIONAL weapon.
Falluja doesn’t have a military barracks or any other ‘military’ targets, therefore its use is inherently against civilian targets as per the rules of war.
Eno, pull your head out of your ass your retarded moron!
November 21st, 2005 at 7:02 pmGlad to see that you picked it up, but it is not an exclusive. The CBC reported on it last night and I mentioned it this morning. http://www.desententia.com/ desenarchive/ 2005/ 11/ us_in_2002_iraq.html
November 21st, 2005 at 7:05 pmThat’s great, but most people still haven’t heard about this story since it hasn’t hit the main stream media.
November 21st, 2005 at 7:09 pmW has taken so many “chemicals” in the past he has trouble remembering the company line from day to day plus he has no real grasp of combat.
November 21st, 2005 at 7:19 pmDear Ryan Neat:
Actually, when armed men are firing from a building, or when a building is used as an ammunition cache or for some other combat purpose, that building automatically becomes a military target under the Geneva rules. That’s why the Geneva Convention makes putting troops in churches or hospitals a war crime… because then you are making those buildings legitimate targets.
Thus, there were quite a lot of military targets in Fallujah, because the enemy’s armed forces are a military target, and so are any positions they are fighting from.
A building with a sniper in it who is trying to shoot my soldiers is not a civilian target anymore.
Now remove your head from the gutter, O insulting one.
November 21st, 2005 at 7:20 pmI don’t know if I’ve ever been to this weblog before, but good job on finding this source… Great research!
November 21st, 2005 at 7:25 pmWouln’t you just love to see Eric Voorhies(Jason’s brother) slowly melt away after being hit with WP, with all of his skin hanging from him like crimson meat curtains, cool.
November 21st, 2005 at 7:27 pmYour God (not mine)is listening Eric.
What is the difference between a banned chemical weapoon that kills by blistering the skin (mustard gas) and a chemical that kills by burning the skin (white phosphorous) ?
November 21st, 2005 at 7:29 pmon military targets and Fallujah…. the US military seized the hospitals in Fallujah - before the the onslaught… which would be against the Geneva Conventions - preventing the wounded from seeking aide - which according to the above explanation #69 would also be a war crime… or does this only count for the “other guys”?
November 21st, 2005 at 7:31 pm[…] The Pentagon says so. IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […] […]
November 21st, 2005 at 7:38 pmPentagon Past vs. Pentagon Present
History and facts are not kind to this administration — both have a way of shining the unforgiving light of truth upon the not-so-pretty things going on.
November 21st, 2005 at 7:42 pmhanhaanha Axsis of Evil sounds a bit silly these days doesn’t it……Evildoers hheheehe
November 21st, 2005 at 7:48 pmExcellent detective work! This should be leading every nightly news report and be on the front page of every newspaper in this country.
Whether it will be…who knows?
November 21st, 2005 at 7:49 pmEric,
Funny you would use that argument, it’s similar to Osama saying that the use of ‘economics’ as a tool of oppression made the world trade center a military target. Those who wish to do unspeakable acts, always seem to couch it with such convenient rhetoric.
“The traditional rules of war, codified in the Geneva Convention, forbid the targeting of non-combatants. Beyond that, they hold commanders to the principle of “proportionality” - an armored unit, for example, can’t destroy a village and its inhabitants to kill one sniper.”
Once again, you represent the worst kind of irrationalizations of unspeakable acts. You and your fellow republicans shame our country!
November 21st, 2005 at 7:54 pmIn light of the recent revelation of these horrible war crimes, it now makes perfect sense that the coalition forces would target independent journalists from the outset of the war.
November 21st, 2005 at 7:59 pmsomeone should cut a line of white phosphorus for ‘ol Dubya………
November 21st, 2005 at 8:23 pmPlease stop insulting retarded people. People with mental retardation are that way through no fault of their own. They do not deserve the numerous insults I see on this site. The Wing-nuts that are posting here do have a choice in the matter. They’ve chosen to live in ignorance. They may be assholes, evil pricks, dipshits, jackasses…whatever, but most of them are not retarded and calling them that only insults folks who are.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:23 pmOHMYGODLETTHISSTORYDIEIT’SASEMANTICARGUMENTFULLOFSOUNDANFURYANDSIGNIFYINGNOTHING!
We have a Vice Preseident to impeach here, people. This story is a red herring.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:26 pmGod is not on our side because he hates idiots also.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:27 pm“IRI, have you seen the news? Iraq was not an immenent threat. Therefore, we did not invade in self-defense. You have lots of other reasons (spreading democracy, fighting “them†“thereâ€, sending a message, etc) so you don’t need pretend it’s self defense anymore.”
November 21st, 2005 at 8:31 pmComment by Hippie
***** Good Hippie, let’d just leave it at:
a.) Saddam was not abiding by the terms of the cease-fire - even though many progs and profiteers tried to excuse him.
b.) Saddam was a “State” sponser of terrorism - just ask the families of “suicide bombers” who profitted from the “sacrifice” of their dead relatives.
c.) Saddam plotted to assinate Bush the Elder.
d.) Saddam’s shooting at US pilots enforcing the cease-fires no fly zones.
Do you guys carry spit wads and straws in your pockets?
One of the Preliminary CHARGES AGAINST SADDAM is the USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS in the 1991 ATTACK AGAINST THE KURDS mentioned in the PENTAGON DOCUMENT.
Uhm, well.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:48 pmMightyHermaphrodite,
And you believe that us using WMDs is somehow ‘better’ than the things you list?
You are a retarded fool you moron!
November 21st, 2005 at 8:54 pmGive it up already!
November 21st, 2005 at 8:54 pmYou just voted for Bush, again, a few short months ago. Bush = USA. USA = Bush
I’ve been hearing this for years now.
“look Bush lied again, now we’re really really sure he lied.”
Either vote the sucker out of office or admit that you don’t mind shedding blood for oil as long as you don’t suffer consequences.
End of story.
Oh and MightyHermaphrodite,
None of the things you mentioned made Saddam an urgent threat, but it did make him a tin pot despot. The fact that you can’t tell the difference explains why you’re a retarded republican back inept fools. They’re one of you aren’t they?
If you’re the best the JAG has, no wonder the covered up the Mai Lai massacre as a ‘patriotic’ act. You guys are just evil!
November 21st, 2005 at 8:55 pm[…] We (rightly) accuse Iraq of using chemical weapons against the Iraqi people - including White Phosphorus. We cite Iraq’s use of chemical weapons as one of the reasons for going to war there, in fact we pull Iraq’s chemical weapons use out of our asses everytime somebody questions the war. […]
November 21st, 2005 at 9:34 pmYes! I wish I’d read this before I sent a letter to the editor today to the NYTimes. Will the Times run this? I really doubt it. Why? I have no idea. Can anyone explain?
November 21st, 2005 at 9:37 pmAnn
Chemical or not, I’d draw the distinction between weapons that are aimed strictly at the guys shooting back and whose side effects don’t include genetic damage, and weapons that are aimed at people not really in the fight (including kids conceived 10 years later), or at ruining the land (like Agent Orange).
It seems to me that people shooting at me can’t complain if I use the kitchen sink back at them — while I should have sense enough to concentrate all of my resources on what is needed right here and now, and not waste energy on stuff whose effects won’t be felt for years or decades.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:01 pmJohn Erlichman
I agree that Dick Cheney is the ‘bigger picture’ but that does not mean that the hypocrisy on Iraq, a part of Cheney’s chicanery, should not be mentioned or condemned. We do not have to be ’single issue’ activists.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:03 pmJennty #3
“…in combat you do what you got to do to survive…”
“… A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical†describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:
IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS….”
http://thinkprogress.org/2005
/11/21/phosphorus-chemical/
We are becoming them. Is that the noble mission?
“…From what I’ve read about Falluja there weren’t many civilians in the town when the bulk of the fighting was going down…”
November 21st, 2005 at 10:29 pmIn the runup to Fallujah, men and boys aged 14 to 60 were turned back from leaving Fallujah. Once the fighting started, entire families were shot by US forces trying to swim the river to get to safety. Google it.
[…] Daily Kos is reporting on a Pentagon briefing paper dug up by Thing Progress. It’s from 1995. […]
November 21st, 2005 at 10:32 pmFrom an earlier post: “That’s right. For some strange reason there are a few people in the Pentagon that places America ahead of the terrorists and Saddam. I know that seems unfair to you Natural Born Losers but that’s the way it should be and that’s the way it is.
I’ve read about those WP rounds, it’s good stuff. Go USA! USA! USA!”
Apparently this person thinks the war in Iraq is a football game. As an Army veteran myself, my guess is that this person has never worn the uniform, has certailnly never been in combat.
War is not a game. It is a deadly, awful, serious hell. I was lucky never to have been in combat myself, but this juvenile approach to war — Go USA! USA! USA! — is exactly what got us into Iraq in the first place. Our rich frat boy president apparently sees war in just those terms, and that is why we have nearly 2100 dead now and more than 15,000 maimed for life, many of them with nightmares they may never be able to forget.
Whoever posted that moronic sentiment about the war is seriously twisted. And he does no honor to the troopers who are over there fighting for their lives.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:32 pm#63 - “Irregardless” is not a word, since the two negative suffixes “Ir” and “re” would cancel each other out; resulting in “gardless”… whatever the hell that is.
Ya, I know worrying about English when discussing the US using WP against civillians seems assinine, but it makes you look like an idiot. Sorry - spelling counts.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:41 pmI wonder what “THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE” means? BTW, wasn’t the treaty which defined “chemical weapons” signed in 1993? And this report of from 1991?
November 21st, 2005 at 10:47 pmWhen Is a Chemical Weapon Not a Chemical Weapon
It would appear that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon believed it is using tactics in the Iraqi war in violation of international law. The Bush Administration was planning to go to war with Iraq since it was sworn into office in 1991. It refuse…
November 21st, 2005 at 10:57 pmI used White Phosphorus, as seventeen pound rockets, in South Vietnam in 1969, near Song Be Provence to save an American convoy driving the roads to bring supplies to LZ Buttons. If I had not used White Phosphorus that convoy attack could have been wiped out but instead — by lucky circumstance — we alone with my helicopter fire team of two helped our nation’s fighting citizens survive another day. Wille Pete was not banned as a chemical war weapon in 1969 and perhaps I accidentally on purpose then saved many American lives in that convoy that could have been, instead, on the Washington, DC Wall. In war — survival comes first — hoping the enemy weaknesses fade from the battle ground. If I played dirty back then — I’m sorry — to those enemy guys trying to kill us. It only happened this once and I will take full responsibility for saving those brave American truck and jeep drivers. I didn’t know them by name but I loved them just the same and long may they live!
November 21st, 2005 at 11:09 pmTHIS IS A “HEARTS AND MINDS” ISSUE, NOT A SEMANTIC “INCENDIARY VS. CHEMICAL WEAPON” ISSUE. IF AN IRAQI CIVILIAN SAW A FAMILY MEMBER OR FRIEND SUFFER AND/OR DIE FROM THE USE OF WHITE PHOSPORUS, THAT PERSON IS NOT GOING TO GO AND CHECK ARMY FIELD MANUALS OR THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS TO SEE IF THE USE OF W.P. WAS LEGAL.
PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, DROPPING THIS CRAP ON IRAQIS IS REAL GOOD WAY TO RADICALIZE THEM; IT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER IT’S “TECHNICALLY” LEGAL OR NOT.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:13 pmHey if some neo-con dork named Gomez responds below, you should totally flame him with e-mail. He is goofy for Bush and will twist his head around any ethical lapse the psycho-stupid Prez can come up with.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:17 pmThis is nothing new.
Once upon a time there was designed a new kind of bullet which mushroomed upon impact and caused serious damage. It was called, after the armory in which it had been designed, the “dum dum.” And it was used to win a war. After which, of course, it was declared illegal because it was so inhumane.
The ban on white phosphorus goes all the way back to World War I. Air forces used a small percentage of WP rounds as “tracers” to see where there shots were going (particularly in the dark). It was considered a war crime to use ammunition which was 100% tracer rounds except against (hydrogen-filled) dirigibles in order to ignite the hydrogen.
But the winners of a war write the history. The firebombing of Dresden by the British was as much of a war crime as the firebombing of Coventry by the Germans. The winners get to decide what goes to court.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:28 pmAdvise to soldiers:
Incandescent particles of WP may produce extensive burns. Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful; a firm eschar is produced and is surrounded by vesiculation. The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen. Contact with these particles can cause local burns. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin (upper extremities, face). Burns frequently are second and third degree because of the rapid ignition and highly lipophilic properties of white phosphorus.
If burning particles of WP strike and stick to the clothing, take off the contaminated clothing quickly before the WP burns through to the skin. Remove quickly all clothing affected by phosphorus to prevent phosphorus burning through to skin. If this is impossible, plunge skin or clothing affected by phosphorus in cold water or moisten strongly to extinguish or prevent fire. Then immediately remove affected clothing and rinse affected skin areas with cold sodium bicarbonate solution or with cold water. Moisten skin and remove visible phosphorus (preferably under water) with squared object (knife-back etc.) or tweezers. Do not touch phosphorus with fingers! Throw removed phosphorus or clothing affected by phosphorus into water or allow to bum in suitable location. Cover phosphorus burns with moist dressing and keep moist to prevent renewed inflammation. It is neccessary to dress white phosphorus-injured patients with saline-soaked dressings to prevent reignition of the phosphorus by contact with the air.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/ military/ systems/ munitions/ wp.htm
The Battle of Fallujah was conducted from 8 to 20 November 2004 with the last fire mission on 17 November. The battle was fought by an Army, Marine and Iraqi force of about 15,000 under the I Marine Expeditionary Force (IMEF). US forces found WP to be useful in the Battle of Fallujah. “WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake†missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. … We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions.”
November 21st, 2005 at 11:41 pmTechnically, all munitions are chemical weapons. Obviously, the Treaty of Versailles did not mean all munitions.
Your blurry logic needs some windex!
November 21st, 2005 at 11:45 pmSo WP is a chemical weapon? That means Saddam has WMD then, as every army in the world stocks WP as an illuminating agent and obscurant - including Iraq’s. Ergo the war was justified.
Dumb shits.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:47 pmTime for a little comic relief:
November 21st, 2005 at 11:55 pmhttp://www.prospect.org/ web/ galleries/ default-image/ cover12-bush.jpg
Wow some people here are really stupid. Paul in LA get a your head out of your ass and get a clue.
“Mustard gas is a CHEMICAL WEAPON. It does not kill through toxicity (such as by arsenic or other nerve poison). It kills by burning the respiratory tract.”
WRONG. Mustard gas kills by combining with guanine nitrogen in DNA, which causes cellular death and blistering. This is a CHEMICAL as opposed to THERMAL process. WP ignites on exposure with oxygen and it is this THERMAL reaction that kills.
“‘Incendiary’ means that it burns, but phosphorus doesn’t primarily kill through burning. It kills by burning the respiratory tract. Notice the difference? THERE IS NONE.”
Yeah nice try moron “phosphorous doesn’t kill thru burning” and then next sentence … “it kills by burning.” Self contradictory fool.
Ciao retard.
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:03 amENGLISH SOB:
irregardless is a wrong word because,
regard is the root, meaning, here, to look at or consider.
regardless, means, essentially “without looking at”
ir, as you correctly note, is a negation. But it negates the “less” not the “re.” The stand alone prefix “re” usually means “again”, but that prefix is not in this word.
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:04 amAnd of course thermal processes are ‘chemical’ but not under Convention rubric. So don’t make a fool out of yourself by equivocating between the two. Man I own you all.
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:05 amThe right is clearly time-challenged, as “i own you” demonstrates.
By the way “i”, the whole world has acknowledged that Hussein used chemical weopons against the Kurds after Gulf Storm, and after we abandoned their efforts to overthrow Hussein. Where you been?
Also “i” - Wonder where Saddam got them? Got an answer for that?
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:13 amKT, so? What’s your point and its relevance to this thread.
(None. It’s called changing the subject.)
If, according to you clowns WP is a chemical weapon… then Iraq continues to possess WMD till the date of invasion, thereby justifying it.
You stupid shitdicks continue mangle logic in the most laughable way. Carry on digging.
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:26 amIf, according to you clowns WP is a chemical weapon… then Iraq continues to possess WMD till the date of invasion, thereby justifying it.
Comment by i own you — November 22, 2005 @ 12:26 am
This is inaccurate.
Hussein’s regime did, at some point, manufacture and possess WMDs (including White Phosphorous). That is common knowledge. But its capacity to produce them was greatly diminished during the first Gulf War in 1991 and by the sanctions imposed on Iraq from that year until 2003. By the time the UNMOVIC team was inspecting Iraqi facilities, Hussein’s regime was largely complying with U.N. terms and was not producing WMDs anymore.
Before the invasion, the January, 2003 UNMOVIC final report to the U.N. Security Council basically says that what the commission is looking for are stockpiles leftover from 1991 –not newly produced biological or chemical agents. It also describes how Iraq’s capability to produce WMDs is practically non-existent. The inspectors did not find evidence of any chemical or biological agents produced after 1991. See the UNMOVIC report here: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
After the invasion the CIA released a report in September, 2004 about Iraq’s WMDs. It says at the very top of the document, in the section “Key Findings”, that:
“While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.”
And also, “Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure, although its overall industry had not fully recovered from the effects of sanctions, and had not regained pre-1991 technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).”
http://www.cia.gov/ cia/ reports/ iraq_wmd_2004/ chap5.html
It has been widely reported that the Army’s Task Force in charge of uncovering Iraq’s WMDs had to leave that country empty-handed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ac2/ wp-dyn/ A40212-2003May10?language=printer
David Kay, former U.S Chief Weapons Inspector, also said in January of 2004 that Iraq had no WMDs: http://www.cnn.com/ 2004/ WORLD/ meast/ 01/ 25/ sprj.nirq.kay/
http://www.usatoday.com/ news/ world/ iraq/ 2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, stated the same thing in October of 2004:
http://www.cnn.com/ 2004/ WORLD/ meast/ 10/ 06/ iraq.wmd.report/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ articles/ A12115-2004Oct6.html
White Phosphorous is a WMD regardless of who has it. But Iraq did not possess it by the time of the invasion in 2003. In fact, Iraq had not had the capability to manufacture that, or any other biological or chemical agent in years prior to the invasion.
November 22nd, 2005 at 1:08 amdear ‘i own you’–please continue to argue semantics and whether the war was justified, because i find it amusing. it’s just not relevant because the use of white phosphorus as a weapon is not justified. but please continue to shine like a beacon of truth.
November 22nd, 2005 at 1:13 amWow Gregor Samsa, your retardation must be profound if you quote all those articles without realizing that WP IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS A CHEMICAL WEAPON UNDER THE UN WEAPONS INSPECTION GUIDELINES.
Which was the point of irony. If you idiots think WP is a chemical weapon under international weapons treaties (which it is most clearly NOT), then Iraq continues to have chemical weapons, and large “chemical weapon” stockpiles of WP continue to exist in Iraq. Why? Because WP is mainly an illuminating agent or obscurant THAT ALL ARMIES USE - including Iraq’s.
Smoke grenades? WP. Artillery fired illuminating shells? WP. In short, you don’t know what you are talking about.
Your ignorance and stupidity is comical were it not so tragic.
November 22nd, 2005 at 1:28 ampgw, please continue to blabber like some clueless fool who hasn’t read the relevant weapons treaty provisions on what is or is not allowed to be used on the battlefield against combatants.
That some fool like Gregor conflates WP with chemical WMD, and pontificates without detecting the irony of what he says (i.e. that Iraq therefore continued to harbour WMD in the form of WP till the invasion) indicates general imbecility on his part and the ditto monkeys here.
November 22nd, 2005 at 1:34 ami’m sure the people of iraq would love to hear all about relevant weapons treaty provisions. i’m sure they will find it all quite relevant and will no doubt be won over by your use of the phrase ‘Convention rubric’. their ‘hearts and minds’ will be yours. and then you will ‘own them’.
November 22nd, 2005 at 1:41 am102. I’m with 99.
Theuse of these weapons in combat by menconfronted with the necessity of killingor being killedisvastly different from sawing off the head ofa helpless, bound captive.
November 22nd, 2005 at 1:42 ampgw, combatants get hit by bullets, WP, grenades, and anything not banned explicitly. That’s war. What did you expect.
But all that is besides the point, since this blogpost by the indecently named ‘think progress’ (think? comical flatulence more like) ASSERTS that ‘chemical weapons’ were used, you’d better get your facts about what constitutes a chemical weapon right. But you don’t, and you can’t. And you Twittle and twattle shifting moral concerns as your little outrage charade is pwned for what it is - a laughable concoction of mock and laughable assertions which do not even begin to stand up to factual scrutiny.
And to think I own you.
November 22nd, 2005 at 1:50 amThere is an ongoing argument here that WP is not a chemical weapon. Technically, it is not, but as an incendiary weapon, its use against civilian concentrations is still illegal under Geneva.
First to clear up a few points about the statements that it was used as an illuminating round. Ordnance-delivered illuminating rounds are magnesium core, and *not* white phosphorous. Having one land on top of you would be bad, but the parachute gives you some warning. The blather you hear about it being used for illumination is most likely just an excuse to avoid scrutiny.
What WP IS is an incendiary smoke round with alternate use as an anti-personnel/anti-fortification weapon. There are alternative chemical smoke rounds which do not generate the lethal chemical dispersal that WP does, and those should have been used in built-up areas for screening. US infantry forces also use WP smoke grenades because they generate smoke screens faster than chemical smoke grenades (because they burst, scattering their payload over a wide area, as opposed to emitting a non-lethal chemical smoke screen).
Use of WP in built up civilian areas would have been deliberate given that alternative smoke-generating ordnance is available. It is likely that those authorizing its use may have been unaware that civilians may have been within the area of lethal effect, but it is also their legal responsibility to ensure that they are not dropping it on said civilians.
WP does nasty things to people, and getting covered with it and inhaling it will kill you just as dead as mustard gas in just as painful and nasty a manner.
Attempting to make the argument that it isn’t a chemical weapon is pure semantics. It’s the same logic that people who make light of restrictions about using light autocannon on personnel use when they say, “I was aiming at his canteen, and that’s equipment, so I can use my .50 cal.!” WPs use against civilians (as an incendiary device) is proscribed in Protocol III of the “Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (1980).” Although smoke rounds are generally excepted from this prohibition, it only applies to those which may have “incidental” incendiary effects, and WP is a pure incendiary substance.
Now, the rub here is that the US has never signed this convention (some of our leaders apparently like napalming things and scattering land mines as a military expedient, and we get away with it largely because of our nuclear stockpile). That Japan never signed the 1925 convention against use of poison gas was no defense for WWII Japanese commanders who practiced biological and chemical warfare against Chinese civilians and Allied POWs.
You may continue to argue your case that its use against civilian concentrations is acceptable. Counter-arguments that you are a psychopath should be given due weight. You should consider offering up your services as defense attorneys at war crimes trials.
November 22nd, 2005 at 2:21 amIf you idiots think WP is a chemical weapon under international weapons treaties (which it is most clearly NOT), then Iraq continues to have chemical weapons, and large “chemical weapon” stockpiles of WP continue to exist in Iraq. Why? Because WP is mainly an illuminating agent or obscurant THAT ALL ARMIES USE - including Iraq’s.
Comment by i own you — November 22, 2005 @ 1:28 am
Please post links and sources to substantiate your claim that that the Iraqi army currently has “large stockpiles” of White Phosphorous and/or chemical weapons.
November 22nd, 2005 at 2:24 amTHIS IS A “HEARTS AND MINDS†ISSUE, NOT A SEMANTIC “INCENDIARY VS. CHEMICAL WEAPON†ISSUE. IF AN IRAQI CIVILIAN WATCHED A FAMILY MEMBER SUFFER DIE FROM THE USE OF WHITE PHOSPORUS, THAT PERSON IS NOT GOING TO GO AND CHECK ARMY FIELD MANUALS OR THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS TO SEE IF THE USE OF W.P. WAS LEGAL.
PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, DROPPING THIS CRAP ON IRAQIS IS A REAL GOOD WAY TO RADICALIZE THEM; IT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER IT’S “TECHNICALLY†LEGAL OR NOT.
November 22nd, 2005 at 2:26 amPentagon admits white phosphorus is a chemical weapon
On November 9 and 17 of this year, I addressed the use of white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon, by U.S. forces in Iraq. Reaction from readers was, well, intense.
You can find those posts
November 22nd, 2005 at 2:36 amI-RIGHT-I, I wonder if you consider yourself a Christian. Who would Jesus drop Willy Pete on?
Why don’t YOU suit up and ship out to Fallujah right quick and let some poor three-tourer come home? Fall in, buddy? Tell me what town you’re in and I’ll refer you to the closest Army recruiter. Come on, now. What, you scared?!
U-WRONG-U, that is funny, man! Very funny! HE-WRONG-HE! HE-HYPOCRITE-HE, too!
November 22nd, 2005 at 2:41 am[…] Back in the day when they thought Saddam was using phosphorous weapons the Pentagon did consider it a chemical weapon. Think Progress has the contents of a formerly classified Pentagon document from 1995: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […] […]
November 22nd, 2005 at 2:41 am[…] Think Progress » Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’ […]
November 22nd, 2005 at 2:44 amJohn Powers, don’t be stupid. No one least of all me has argued that “use of WP against civilians is acceptable” so desist from pulling things out of your ass as you go along.
“Use of WP in built up civilian areas would have been deliberate given that alternative smoke-generating ordnance is available. It is likely that those authorizing its use may have been unaware that civilians may have been within the area of lethal effect, but it is also their legal responsibility to ensure that they are not dropping it on said civilians.”
Rubbish. WP smoke grenades are standard issue. For all your confabulation you are quite ignorant of how WP actually works, and the fact that it is deployed to screen troops that are tactically retreating from an engagement, which would mean that the TROOPS THEMSELVES are exposed to the obscurant fog that they deployed. “Lethal”. You have to laugh.
“WP does nasty things to people, and getting covered with it and inhaling it will kill you just as dead as mustard gas in just as painful and nasty a manner.”
More rubbish from the armchair weapons expert. Inhaling WP fumes will not kill you. Let alone “kill you just as dead as mustard gas”. I have literally stood not more than 5 feet from a WP smoke grenade as it released voluminous amounts of smoke into the air. I’m not quite dead, so stop pontificating from your ass.
“Attempting to make the argument that it isn’t a chemical weapon is pure semantics.”
Oh yeah? So international weapons treaties and their enforcement agencies are engaged in pure semantics? Who’re you trying to kid.
Next, the hopeless ignoramus Samsa writes:
“Please post links and sources to substantiate your claim that that the Iraqi army currently has “large stockpiles†of White Phosphorous and/or chemical weapons. ”
No links needed. All armies use smoke grenades, and the standard kind is WP.
1. As has been made clear to your rather thick and no doubt vacuous self, WP is not a “chemical weapon” according to weapons experts and monitoring agencies.
2. WP is found in smoke grenades. All armies have smoke grenades. Iraq has smoke grenades i.e. WP stockpiles. QED.
3. Because you stupidly equate WP to ‘chemical weapons’, Iraq therefore, by virtue of it having smoke grenades, has chemical weapons BY YOUR OWN LOGIC. It therefore has “chemical WMD”, by YOUR OWN LIGHTS.
So: not only are you comically wrong that WP is a chemical weapon, in being comically wrong you undermine your own position on the non existence of WMD in Iraq since WP smoke grenades continue to be used by almost all professional armies - even Iraq’s.
I own you so bad.
November 22nd, 2005 at 2:58 am“Burning WP produces a hot, dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus pentoxide, which are converted by moist air into phosphoric acid.
Most forms of smoke are not hazardous in the kinds of concentrations produced by a battlefield smoke shell. However, exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) does have the potential to cause illness or even death.”
‘Not hazardous usually in battlefield concentrations’. Ciao tools.
November 22nd, 2005 at 3:06 amOh wait, there’s more:
“WP smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. With intense exposures, a very explosive cough may occur. However, no recorded casualties from the effects of WP smoke alone have occurred in combat operations and to date there are no confirmed deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes.”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/ military/ systems/ munitions/ wp.htm
O lethality O outrage ! Clowns.
November 22nd, 2005 at 3:08 am“From what I’ve read about Falluja there weren’t many civilians in the town when the bulk of the fighting was going down.”
Bullcrap. That town had a minimum of 300,000 people and a maximum of 500,000. There are literally tons of reports that literally thousands of males over the age of ten or so were TURNED BACK into the city by the US troops ringing the city. Entire families saw their male members NOT ALLOWED to leave the city.
The INSURGENTS escaped - easily - the CIVILIANS DID NOT!
Anybody who says different is an idiot.
It is IRRELEVANT whether WP is a chemical weapon or an incendiary weapon. It is its USE here against civilians that is the issue.
Anybody ATTEMPTING to “evacuate” and then leveling a town of 250-500,000 is committing a WAR CRIME. Period.
Every single US soldier is REQUIRED by the Geneva Convention to protect ALL civilians, even if they are standing next to an enemy combatant.
The US military is bombing from the air locations known to harbor civilians, they are shooting people at checkpoints with no evidence other than a fast-moving car (EVERYBODY in the Third World drives fast, morons!), and they are brutalizing detainees for which they have not the slightest shred of evidence are even involved in the insurgency, let alone as actual combatants.
The US military is composed of war criminals. And no amount of crap about “you do what have to do to survive ub war” alters that. Those pilots in those jets who are bombing civilians are IN NO WAY THREATENED by anybody on the ground. The only “threat” they have is whether the Coke machine at the air base they operate from will be empty by the time they get back from their sortie.
I served three years in the US Army from 1967-1970, including one year in Vietnam. I am perfectly familiar with the incompetence, stupidity, and venal maliciousness of the average US soldier and their officers and NCOs.
I do NOT “support the troops” in Iraq or anywhere else. A soldier in almost ANY army on the planet is a “war criminal” virtually by definition. None of them are WARRIORS. If we had a force of warriors to defend this nation, not only would this nation be invulnerable, it would have been uninvolved in ninety percent of the conflicts we have been involved in over the last century. You can only go to war with MORONS, not warriors.
And the behavior of the US military - not only in its brutality and stupidity, but in its military INCOMPETENCE - in Iraq has only demonstrated this more clearly than ever before.
November 22nd, 2005 at 4:14 amBehind the phosphorus clouds are war crimes within war crimes
We now know the US also used thermobaric weapons in its assault on Falluja, where up to 50,000 civilians remained
there is hard evidence that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon against combatants in Falluja. As this column revealed last Tuesday, US infantry officers confessed that they had used it to flush out insurgents. A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC that white phosphorus “was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants”. He claimed “it is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal.” This denial has been accepted by most of the mainstream media. UN conventions, the Times said, “ban its use on civilian but not military targets”. But the word “civilian” does not occur in the chemical weapons convention. The use of the toxic properties of a chemical as a weapon is illegal, whoever the target is.
The Pentagon argues that white phosphorus burns people, rather than poisoning them, and is covered only by the protocol on incendiary weapons, which the US has not signed. But white phosphorus is both incendiary and toxic. The gas it produces attacks the mucous membranes, the eyes and the lungs. As Peter Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the BBC last week: “If … the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because … any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.”
The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence: “It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.”
Last night the blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the US department of defence, dated April 1991, and titled “Possible use of phosphorus chemical”. “During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising,” it alleges, “Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorus (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil … and Dohuk provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships … These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly … hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas.” The Pentagon is in no doubt, in other words, that white phosphorus is an illegal chemical weapon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ comment/ story/ 0,3604,1647716,00.html
November 22nd, 2005 at 4:25 amMa poi l\’hanno trovato?
Nietzesche riprende Daily Kos che riprende ThinkProgress.
November 22nd, 2005 at 5:09 amIl fosforo è stato usato come "fumogeno", però sì, è un\’arma chimica.
Per il Pentagono il fosforo bianco è un\’arma chimica
Sul Daily Kos c\’è un articolo utile per chiarire uno dei punti controversi dopo l\’inchiesta di Sigfrido Ranucci su Falluja, andata in onda su RaiNews24 e citata più nei notiziari stranieri che in quelli italiani (perfino la Rai, che…
November 22nd, 2005 at 5:28 amNotice that to the pile of shit warmongers America is just a place to park their SUVs?
A place they can make a few bucks off whatever comes along? Religion, Sex, War?
I thinks its time to do more with these shovels than just REMOVE their BULLSHIT!
Too Bad America never purged the Fascists along with the Commies.
November 22nd, 2005 at 7:17 am“You’re right it is about what’s right, and what is right is giving the guys in the field all the tools to do the job.”
The utilitarian argument for chemical weapons could be turned against you. The Iraqis are fighting foreign invaders on their soil. What is your argument against someone in their camp who argues that bringing a dirty bomb to N.Y. is “giving the guys in the field the tools to do the job.”? Right shouldn’t depend on which nation you fight for. That is the essence of the laws of war that we love to talk about but don’t seem to be able to bring ourselves to follow.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:05 amThe picture associated with this comment cannot be one of Fallujah. Fallujah is pancake flat…not a mountain in sight. While this photo might be an interesting visual addition to the discussion, it’s NOT Fallujah. Much of the discussion is reasoned…but the picture contributes little to it.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:09 amSo the brown shirt logic is to defeat a monster you become the monster? No wrong answer. American have fought to protect America because it does not use torture or chemical weapons. To use them is to become the enemy.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:14 amToo funny…Go to Google type in “failure” without the quotes and the hit “I feel lucky” hopefully it is not fixed yet..some mole will be on it soon