…trouble is, they are in the possession of and being used by US Forces:
White Phospherus shells were used as anti-personnel weapons.
This could be in contravention of the rules on Chemical Weapons- the very rules we accused Saddam Hussein of contravening.
How culpable are US forces in this? What sanctions should the US face?
Pit thread about the same topic. If you go by the normal meaning of the term, it seems it’s not a chemical weapon.
sigh If you go by ANY meaning of the term WP isn’t a chemical weapon. Its an incindiary, a whole othr class of weapons. There IS a treaty that deals with those, but IIRC the US isn’t a signatory to that one.
No, the US will not be open to sanctions, nor is it ‘culpable’. There is no evidence that WP was used indiscriminately against civilians…and we are perfectly within our rights to use it against military targets.
-XT
White Phosphorus isn’t a prohibited chemical weapon, anyone who says differently is lying.
The argument is the same as with Napalm (an analog of which we now know was used in Iraq following repeated denials by US Sources).
If Napalm is used to destroy vegetation or make areas unusable then it is a justifiable use of force. If it is used on personnel whether military of civilians, then its use might be seen as a war crime.
Of course this will never be tested in the legal system as the US has the might or the guile to avoid sanctions that might be imposed on a lesser force, but it has been an item in the news over here for the last few days. This has clearly been presented in Europe as an unacceptable face of US intervention and further decreases the support for US actions in Iraq.
It looks like both Italy and the UK will be bailing out of Iraq before the end of 2006, leaving the US to continue in its own manner to try to support the Iraqi government.
In many ways I welcome every episode (like this one, the napalm use, the Iraqi hidden prisoners, Guantanamo, Secret CIA torture centres/prisons in Europe and elsewhere etc.) as each revelation makes it more likely that we (as Europeans) will be able to wash our hands of the whole disgraceful mire and leave it to the US (who started it) to sort it out. Roll on the day when the Coalition of the Willing becomes the Coalition of the Payroll and all the major counties besides the US have withdrawn their support.
In my view, this is how the US’s culpability will be addressed and what the real sanctions will be- they will be left alone to clear up the mess they created. Roll on Christmas 2006 when the last British soldier will leave the cauldron.
Except the use of napalm (and WP) against military targets isn’t a war crime. Where are you getting that from? The use of nearly any weapon system (including napalm and WP) directly and specifically against a civilian population…thats another matter. I believe that IS a war crime. Unfortunately (for you) there is no evidence that the US directly targetted the civilian population.
Well, we can hope that by then they won’t be needed. Perhaps the elections in Iraq in December will make it so the US can begin withdrawls as well. I hadn’t heard anything definite from the UK that they will be fully out of Iraq by the end of 2006. Do you have a cite for that?
Somehow, based on the tone of your posts, I’m unsurprised that you welcome such events. Makes the US look bad, makes you feel good…shadenfraud I believe the Germans call it. Will you be happy when/if Iraq and the entire ME goes up in flames? You’ll have the US as a scapegoat after all. Will you be able to feel smug and superior if the region goes completely tits up? Lets hope we both never have to find out.
Fair enough. Course your cousins in spirt here in the US will most likely win the next election here if things continue to go south in Iraq so the US may just pull out around the same time. Who do you suppose will pay the REAL price then?
-XT
Lying means purposely saying something which one knows to be false.
There is a considerable body of opinion which would hold that using white phophorus as an anti personnel weapon would be prohibited.
None of these people is lying.
See here:
*"According to international law, any chemical used to harm or kill people or animals is considered a chemical weapon. In the words of Peter Kaiser (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons):
“Any chemical that is used against humans or against animals that causes harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical, ARE considered chemical weapons and as long as the purpose is to cause harm - that is prohibited behaviour.” *
The actual words of the Treaty are:
*"For the purposes of this Convention:
“Chemical Weapons” means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).
“Toxic Chemical” means:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)"*
White Phosphrus is a chemical, it is toxic, if it is aimed at personnel with the intention of using its toxic properties to harm humans through its toxic effect (which US forces have admitted - inhumanely but quite expectedly giving it a humorous and inhumane nickname- to shake and bake) then it is a chemical weapon. If it is merely used as a smoke screen or as a battlefield illumination it is legal, but if it is used as an anti-personnel weapon, then it is not.
So I can say quite clearly, used as an anti-personnel weapon, white phosphorus is a chemical weapon.
No lying there.
1/ The use of Napalm in areas where civilian populations might be would be seen as a war crime. When the battlefield is a heavily populated area, it will be extremely difficult to know and believe that. I do not believe that the world community would be as tolerant now as it was towards the US use of Napalm against civilians/insurgents in Viet Nam. The US military certainly seems to have reigned in its Gung Ho use of napalm in the sixties.
2/ The way the insurgency is going, either continued outside occupation or descent into anarchy worse than the tyranny of Saddam is almost guaranteed. The US is in for the long haul- decades rather than years, else an abrupt withdrawal (helicopters on the embassy roof- remember Viet Nam) and the abandonment of Iraq to its own devices.
The President of Iraq announced this week that British Forces would not be needed after the end of 2006. The Government here has made no effort to deny this. The majority of the people in Britain want out at the earliest opportunity. If people believe that we are being told that we will be out by 2007 and it doesn’t happen, the Government would not have a chance of re-election in 2009.
3/ My Schadenfreude is entirely based on my pre-war predictions that have been largely borne out- nothing like being right to make one feel justified in continuing to predict along the same lines.
4/ OK, I admit it, I’m a democrat (since Kennedy in 68), and yes, it’s looking increasingly likely that the Democrats will be tasked with cleaning this one up. It will be good to feel that the US has reconnected with the civilized world again after its recent excursions into rabid nationalism, authoritarian legislation and international diplomatic disasters. Bring on the new dawn. 
Pjen, sweetie, WP is not a “chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.”
It is a chemical which through exothermic (endothermic? Exo) action on life processes causes death, incapacitation, or permanent harm. Fire is not a chemical action on life processes.
Otherwise, you could say bullets were chemical weapons.
Do you understand these words that are coming from my keyboard? Should I translate them for you?
Feuer ist nicht eine chemische Waffe.
WP brennt Leute.
Es ist nicht die giftige Reaktion, die den Schaden verursacht.
Es ist das Feuer.
… why did I think Pjen was german? Schadenfreude, I suppose. Lovely word. Fantastic song about it on the Avenue Q soundtrack.
Uhm. Scottish. Well, I could shout it louder, if you wanted…
lol…I was wondering that myself. Thought maybe you knew something we all didn’t. Try gaelic…being Scotch s/he MIGHT know that. 
-XT
Whit phosphorus can cause heat which burns conventionally. Agreed.
However, it produces a toxic gas when in contact with oxygen which incapacuitates and kills. Such gas producing weapons are banned.
It also causes caustic burns by combining rapidly with oxygen and other chmeicals in the skin and trans derma and eventually in muscle and bone. This is a chemical reaction that is not merely burning- it is the use of chemicals to cvause incapacitation and death.
If this happens as a side effect of producing smoke or light for battle, this is accptable (as with collateral damage). But the US goons who did this in Falluja admit to targeting enemy locations directly with white phosporus shells- this is the use of chemicals to gas and its actions on life processes other than physical trauma or burning as conventionally understood.
Assuming you are American I can understand why you would want to believe that your forces are not as bad as Saddam (but hold on, he didn’t have any chemical weapons, did he) but such sophistries will not wash with people in nations who believe in the rule of law and adherence to international standards and treaties (the western world excepting Bush’s America).
And by the way I am not Scottish, merely a proud resident of the semi-socialist semi-republic of Scotland.
I think it was you who first used the term in your post numbered 6 above, although I think my spelling is closer.
My German is so poor that at a dinner party in Germany in the seventies I was asked by my german colleague who spoke limited English, why I was speaking such antiquated German. What I know comes from Opera from Wagner, Beethoven and others.
The corect term is Scottish. Scotch is applied merely to the whisky, boiled eggs in sausage meat, and to the concept of scotching a rumor.
And Gaelic is as rare in Scotland as Chinese and Vietnamese together are in the USA!
Less than 60000 speakers of Gaelic exist in a population of about 5 million: a little over 1%.
Any other ethnic assumptions you wish to make, feel free.
No, there’s not, actually.
WP doesn’t cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical. It causes it through exothermic properties - basically, it ignites at a very low temperature. Toxic basically refers to poisonous properties of a chemical.
Again, toxic chemicals. WP is an incendiary chemical.
Nope. It’s toxic properties are not what harms humans. Its incendiary properties are. WP would be covered in the anti-incendiary weapons ban, along with napalm. But the US has not signed that treaty, unfortunately.
Well, you’re probably not lying since that would imply a deliberate untruth. You’re just mistaken.
It was a joke…I’ve been to Scotland several times and have some good friends that live in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Didn’t mean to offend you.
-XT
Quick aside: “Scots” isn’t in common use at all? It’s always “Scottish”? Thanks.
Back on topic: Is it really that hard to put this in perspective, people? The alleged remaining purpose for our being in Iraq is to bring peace and stability, in large part by winning the hearts and minds and trust of the locals. Who here is willing to claim that the use of incendiary weapons accomplishes that better than the use of chemical weapons? Or that it advances the cause at all? Or that it can’t be used just as credibly as anti-American propaganda?
If your position is derived from some narrow dictionary defintion, not from basic morality or even simply measurement against achieving a goal, ISTM you’ve conceded before you even start.
Elvis, you have to understand that ‘dog bites man’ is not a story.
‘Soldier shoots person’ is also not a story. If the person is a civilian, it is regrettable, but not a story.
‘US uses chemical weapon’ is a story. ‘US uses incendiary weapon’ is not.
Someone is making a false claim that the US is using a chemical weapon.
It’s amusing, but wrong. It’s especially wrong as it seems to go to the core of the stated reasons for being in Iraq. Which were, you know, wrong. So when the Iraqis don’t have chemical weapons, and the US is claimed as using them, it becomes even more wrong.
Thus, it is necessary to fight the ignorance on the part of those who would call an incendiary weapon a chemical weapon. I am saying nothing about hearts and minds. I am simply calling an untruth an untruth.
Yeah, it’s the double-reverse irony that gets me.
“OK, Bush lied about Iraqi chemical weapons. That was wrong. So, how are we gonna convince people that what he did was wrong? I know! Let’s lie about Bush using chemical weapons!”
The use of the word “chemical weapon” is a deliberate lie with a clear propaganda purpose, maybe not by Pjen, maybe he’s just confused. But are you claiming it’s OK to lie, mislead and distort in order if you have good intentions?
Pjen, I believe you’re overestimating the toxicity of the gas produced in open-air battlefield situations.
From globalsecurity.org
If someone desired to use a chemical weapon, WP would be an extremely poor choice.
Unfortunately, the misconception of WP being a chemical weapon is commonly held, and propagated by many (intentionally or unintensionally).
From Scotsman.com