IF this story is true, then this is the most damning evidence yet against the US and the Bush administration. It could be just propaganda made up by an Italian television station. Or it could literally be the smoking gun that would make America an international pariah.
I tend to believe it, if only because it was also reported back in January :
Again, it remains to be confirmed but IF true, then this is shameful.
I didn’t say anything about approving it’s use on civilians, just that a) it’s not a chemical weapon, b) it’s been used widely in wars before this one (Google “white phosphorous Vietnam”), and c) it’s been used in Iraq before this groundbreaking Italian news flash.
When it’s on your skin and eats through to your bone, are you going to care what it’s called? Regardless of what it is called, what justification is there to drop it on civilians?
My bet is that when the dust settles, it will come out that “indiscriminate” is a gross over-statement. Did some civilians get hit by WP as collateral damage? Probably. Was it intentional and direct? I highly doubt it. Italian TV is about as reliable a source as Fox.
Well, just to get this little hijack over with, perhaps BobLibDem should request the title to be changed. Otherwise, you’re just going to get people in here saying (correctly) that white phosphorous isn’t actually a chemical weapon, and disregarding the remainder of the OP on a nitpick.
Pretty much what I was getting ready to say but you beat me too it. If it comes out that we indiscriminately (or even deliberately) targetted civilians then thats one thing…but civilians caught in between the battle are another matter. Unless you aren’t going to fight at all then fighting in a city pretty much guarentees that civilians will get caught in the crossfire. In fact, the militants in Fallujah were counting on this as an added defense.
I feel bad for those civilians caught in the middle of the fighting. I feel bad for the civilians blown up daily in Iraq by militants who DELIBERATELY target them…and those blown up accidentally or as ‘collateral damage’ but the US and Brits too. Short of the US tucking tail and bolting though I don’t see how it can be avoided…and even if the US DID leave tomorrow I don’t think it would stop civilians getting killed in job lots. In fact, I’m pretty well convinced that the US leaving would increase civilian casualties in Iraq.
Calling White Phosphorus (WP) a chemical weapon though is simply propaganda (hard as it is to believe, the US isn’t the only one using propaganda in this conflict ). Saying the US used it indiscriminately is going to take some proof…especially since I didn’t notice the entire town of Fallujah was burned down to smoking rubble. Logically if we DID use the stuff ‘indiscriminately’ we would have had nothing stopping us from, say, carpet bombing Fallujah as well. I don’t think folks really have a clear idea of what the US COULD do if they took the gloves off completely. Why did we send in any troops at all in that case would be a good question to ask, if we didn’t care about civilian casualties? We could have stood back and basically blow the city completely apart or used WP (or other incindiaries) to burn it completely to the ground.
Is this the same white phosperous that was dropped by the kiloton on the cities of Europe and Asia during the second world war or is it some new, evil, Bush-flavoured white phosperous?
I only ask because I’m curious to know whether the moral outrage is about an old, familiar, well-used nasty weapon being used on civilians again or about a brand-new, unfamiliar nasty weapon from being used on civilians for the first time.
Wars kill people. They rarely kill people pleasantly. They mostly kill civilians. Ergo, if there is a war on, civilians are nearly always going to get killed horribly, probably in large numbers.
If everyone could just bear this in mind when deciding whether or not to start a war, we wouldn’t have so many. It’s kinda late to have second thoughts half-way through, and pretty pointless.
Being disembowelled by artillery shrapnel or having all your internal organs ruptured by a shockwave isn’t much of an improvement over being burnt alive by WP or napalm or whatever, yet somehow one is acceptable and the other isn’t. Who cares? It’s either OK to fight a major battle in the middle of a city, or it isn’t. Stick to arguing for or against the Falluja offensive, not nit-picking the semantics of what is or isn’t an acceptable way of maiming people.
Looks like some here have forgotten that war’s alleged purpose, the only one connected to reality, was to *liberate * and *democratize * these people, not conquer and kill them.
Yes, war is nasty. Nobody has ever said otherwise. But if the war is unnecessary or futile or counterproductive, so is the nastiness.
Logical thought: had the military used WP “indiscriminately,” I doubt Fallujah would still be standing.That stuff will start fires everywhere quite efficiently, AFAIK. Had it been used in large quantities, the death toll would be in the thousands, bodies everywhere, and the city lying in total ruin.
Then you picked a bad example to spotlight Fallujah. It was a city being held by militants who were also killing civilians off and turning the city into an armed camp. Reguardless, it was an Iraqi city held by non-Iraqi government forces. Thats kind of the definition of ‘liberate’ isn’t it? As for ‘democratize’…well, I’d say we have at least given that a shot, no?
The problem with your statement is it doesn’t take into account reality (no more so than the Administration did pre-invasion). Even if (and this is a big if) the majority of people in a nation can’t stand their government and actually WANT to be ‘liberated’ from it, there will always be a minority of folks who don’t, for a variety of reasons. When those folks are in charge there is no way to ‘liberate’ that people WITHOUT conquering the government…and that means folks are going to die.
Its one of those either or things without a really good solution. Either you leave folks under the boot of some fucked up tin pot dictation (like Lil’ Kimmy in NK…Saddam was another good example)…and the people suffer and die. Or you ‘liberate’ them from said dictator (either through invasion or supporting a popular uprising)…and folks suffer and die. Either way, folks are going to suffer and die reguardless of what you do. The difference is, in theory anyway, if you go to the trouble of liberating them they MIGHT not suffer and die a few years down the road. Whether that comes to pass in Iraq in the future is anyone’s guess…doesn’t look real good right now.
(note: I am pretty much convinced that, cold as it sounds, we should have left the Iraqi’s to suffer and die on their own without lifting a finger to do anything about that situation…much like we are doing about North Korea. Maybe things would have worked out for them in the long run…maybe they would have totally melted down or stayed under the boot of one of Saddams spawn after he shuffled off this mortal coil. Its not the US’s responsiblity to make things right in the world…we have enough on our plate at home keeping OUR citizens happy and prosperous)
). Saying the US used it indiscriminately is going to take some proof…especially since I didn’t notice the entire town of Fallujah was burned down to smoking rubble. Logically if we DID use the stuff ‘indiscriminately’ we would have had nothing stopping us from, say, carpet bombing Fallujah as well. I don’t think folks really have a clear idea of what the US COULD do if they took the gloves off completely. Why did we send in any troops at all in that case would be a good question to ask, if we didn’t care about civilian casualties? We could have stood back and basically blow the city completely apart or used WP (or other incindiaries) to burn it completely to the ground.