Now you know that WP use is not in contravention of the rules on Chemical Weapons.
The US forces therefore are not culpable, and the US should face no sanctions.
The OP has been asked and answered. Any further questions?
The use of WP was no more a violation of international law than the use of bullets. I know you think that the use of bullets in Iraq is a war crime too, but will you now admit that the US didn’t use chemical weapons, WP isn’t a chemical weapon, and while WP could be used to commit war crimes (just like bullets could be), the use of WP in and of itself isn’t a war crime?
If someone in 1991 called WP a chemical weapon, then they lied. Pure and simple. WP isn’t a chemical weapon.
Now, you do know that Saddam used actual chemical weapons, right? Saddam might have been using WP, but he was also using nerve gas. If someone tried to add WP to the charges of chemical warfare against Saddam, then they lied about it. That doesn’t make your allegations (oops, I meant “questions”) that the US is using chemical weapons in Iraq true, now does it?
So will you admit that the US didn’t use chemical weapons in Iraq? Use of WP by Saddam was not a use of chemical weapons. Use of nerve gas by Saddam was a use of chemical weapons.
This may shock you, but it is possible that the report was in error in calling WP a chemical weapon in 1991. We’re talking about an intelligence report from the field, not a statement by the President, a legal opinion by the State Department Legal Advisor, or a law passed by Congress. Are you seriously arguing that any document ever prepared at taxpayer expense constitute a binding statement of US Government policy on that particular subject?
If I cite a paper in which Dan Quayle said that people in Central America speak Latin, are you going to say that his views remain official US Government policy to this day?
I would also like to point out that the CWC was not in existence in 1991, and its annexes do not list WP as a chemical weapon. Even if the 1991 intelligence report was not a mistake, the ratification of the CWC undoubtedly is the categorical word on whether or not WP is a chemical weapon. Which it is not.
Finally, if you can only put one intelligence report (linked here, since nobody has done it before) up against the considerable evidence – such as the statement provided by the spokesman of the head of the UN agency responsible for overseeing the CWC, the analysis by globalsecurity.org, and all the other evidence provided – then I suggest that you have a dearth of facts on your side.
Jumping in late here. Just to note that the professor in question watched a film. Then made an out of court statement that he didn’t think the bodies had been burned.
Ok, not burned. These bodies are decomposing. That’s about all there is to the statement made by the prof.
But, does that statement tell us much? A prof (I’ll grant that he is an expert) views a film. And from that film, he says he doesn’t see evidence of burning. Nothing about what -might- have killed them. Remember now, he’s the forensics expert. No guess, no assumptions, nothing. [ From just that, I like the guy. He knows he has little to go on] But, that does leave open a possibility that they might have died in many other ways. Including lack of oxygen. I was watching a History Channel special about WWII, wherein the GI’s were discussing the use of flame throwers. They said that it happened quite often that the flame burned so hot that the people in the caves died without a mark on them. They suffocated.
That leads me to a thought, just a thought, that maybe the point of using the WP was (through chemical reaction) to deprive an area of oxygen. I don’t know. I fully, completely and absolutely do not know about the properties of WP, and especially not when used as suggested.
And about whether or not we have broken some treaty and our “excuse” is that the USA was not a signatory of that treaty… all I have to respond to that is the recollection that Gonzales says the Geneva Convention is quaint.
If you want to command the moral high ground, you have to take the moral high ground.
It is, I will allow, possible to use WP as a chemical weapon. It is also possible to use coal as a chemical weapon… fill the air with coal dust for thirty years, and someone will probably get Black Lung.
However, I fail to see any use of WP as a chemical weapon in these reports. It was used as an incendiary, to light things on fire. Not for the toxic effects on skin, but for the ability to burn and melt it. Which is, one repeats, very nasty.
But no more so than a flamethrower. Is napalm a chemical weapon now?
I’m not sure about how authentic this site really is, but it looks good to me. The Defense Department seems to think they were chemical weapons when Saddam Hussean used them
I wondered the same thing yesterday, and found the same message over at GlobalSecurity.org: here.
That site’s been pretty reliable since the start of Operation Iraqi freedom.
Arrgh! Give me twenty lashes with a wet noodle. Dang, I thought I had something new. Must…open…all…links…in…every…thread.
But the intelligence report is interesting, to say the least. Surely the field agents don’t feel empowered to use terms like chemical weapon without it being understood what is meant. Could be a simple misunderstanding by one agent, maybe not.
I’m not a weapons expert, or even a chemist, but it is quite possible for a specific compound (element in this case) to be a chemical weapon or not depending entirely on mode of use. Take something as basic as gasoline. Its not a chemical weapon if used in a rocket motor, and it’s not a chemical weapon even if it’s used as an incendiary. But if you deliberately dump it in someone’s water supply it is indeed a chemical weapon.
My understanding with WP is that it can be utilised to produce a smokescreen or as an incendiary, or you can utilise the smoke itself as a chemical weapon. There is a large element method of utilisation and intent in whether it is a chemical weapon or not. But that’s not unique to WP. The US military also uses Uranium, various herbicides and pesticides, numerous types of fuel and so forth that are all potential chemical weapons but not chemical weapons under US usage rules. That doesn’t mean that someone else isn’t using uranium or petroleum chemical weapons right now.
Again, as I said in post 64, one intelligence report by one agent cannot possibly be construed to set US Government policy as to what is, and what is not, a CW. As I said before, that policy has been set by the CWC, a binding multilateral treaty that is the law of the land under the Constitution, and the CWC does not regard WP as a chemical weapon when it is used as an incendiary. Period.
But I agree, there are several interesting things about the intelligence report. Relative to our discussion, it is reported that Saddam was using WP to scare away the Kurds, not to kill them.
Not relative to our discussion, the most interesting thing is the report that Saddam did not use CW against the Coalition in 1991 because of the threatened use of battlefield nuclear weapons. That is by far the most interesting thing about the document.
2,000 battle deaths in a war lasting over 2 years is a record low by any standard and is in no way a losing proposition. All of it was done with a volunteer army who is willing to see it through to the end. Everything was done on a time table that has not wavered. I don’t understand why you want to abandon people who are willing to risk death to vote their way out of a dictatorship.
Did it ever occur to you that a lot of the strife in the Mid East is the direct result of European colonization and that maybe, just maybe, you owe these people a shot at fixing it? Iraq consists of an artificial boundary that forces 3 dissimilar groups together as one. Care to guess which country drew those lines?
What does any of this have to do with using white phosphorous on civilians? Other than being a pathetic attempt to use “freedom is on the march” as a non sequiter diversion.
As Jackmannii pointed out I was addressing the quote I included.
If you would like me to respond to the military use of white phosphorous in a theater of war situation you’ll have to post a reference warranting the discussion. So far nobody has shown that it was used as a primary weapon (directed physically against human flesh). Nor has anyone posted a cite that it was directed at civilians or that anyone was actually burned. The chemical must contact the skin directly for this to happen. As stated in the articles cited it was used as an incendiary or for illumination. When used for illumination its no different than the fire works we watch. As long as it is not shot DIRECTLY on people it is just another tool used in war. Exposure to the smoke of white phosphorous is not the same as exposure to the chemical itself.
If you want to condemn weapons used against civilians then I suggest you start with the people who are using car bombs for the reason of doing so. These would be the people we are fighting and these would be the people the weapons are directed at.
"Asked if it was used as an offensive weapon during the siege of Falluja, he replied: “Yes, it was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants. When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on, and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position: the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so you can kill them with high explosives.”
The Guardian columnist George Monbiot said yesterday that accounts of the use of white phosphorus during the battle for Falluja were published in the March 2005 edition of Field Artillery, a magazine published by the US army. A reporter with California’s North County Times, embedded with the marines during the offensive, also reported soldiers firing into buildings a mixture of white phosphorus and high explosives known as “shake’n’bake”.
White phosphorus burns spontaneously on contact with air, producing phosphorus pentoxide smoke. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke “releases heat on contact with moisture, and will burn mucous surfaces. Contact … can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage.”"
One thought just occurred to me, pjen, which relates to this discussion – you may not be aware that our soldiers are generally not allowed to use CS (tear gas) on the battlefield. (Some very limited circumstances are excempt, e.g., to control a riot in a military prison.)
Do you believe that militaries should be allowed to use CS on the battlefield? For example, instead of firing WP at those enemy positions already under artillery fire, would you view it as acceptable to fire CS instead?
Friend pjen overstates his case. This is doubly unfortunate, as no such overstatement is necessary, his case is substantially troublesome without the embellishments. Further, it offers an opportunity for ad hominem attacks that would not otherwise be available.
Fallujah was a civilian area. The presence of enemy combatants is not relevent to that. The insidious and cowardly nature of those enemy combatants is not relevent. We are duty bound to respect civilians as innocents, inviolate.
It is entirely true that military action in civilian areas are difficult, dangerous, and fraught with peril. They should not be undertaken with anything but a clear understanding that the burden will be on us. When weapons such as these are used in civilian areas, civilians will be killed and maimed, and the burden of responsibility is ours.
Furthermore, it may be tacticly advantageous, but strategicly stupid. Our actions in Fallujah, I submit, have probably engendered more enemies than it killed. If we cannot win the sympathy and respect of the population at large, we might as well pack up and leave, indeed, packing and leaving would be a vast improvement compared to flinging away the lives of ours and the lives of the innocent. A policy that creates more enemies than it neutralizes is the pure essence of galactic stupidity.
That we are dismayed and angered by the opinion of the world at large only shows the cramped insularity of our thinking. We invaded under false pretenses, attacking to preempt a non-existent threat. What else can we expect?
Ask yourself: if you won a free trip to Europe, would you rather have an extra thousand dollars to spend or a Canadian passport?