Italian TV: US Used Chemical Weapons

The BBQ Pit
181

I don’t think so. Let’s go back to what you actually said.

You were just flat out mistaken about what the treaty said. But instead of admiting you were wrong you accuse me of being unable to comprehend what you were saying.

The US isn’t a signatory to the treaty, but the use of WP in Iraq wouldn’t violate the treaty. Even if civilians were killed by WP it wouldn’t violate the treaty. Firebombing Baghdad Dresden-style would have violated the treaty. Chucking WP grenades at kids for fun would violate the treaty, as well as violate the Geneva Conventions and US military law. If you contend those things happened, post the evidence. The use of WP by the US is consistent with the treaty, even though the US never signed the treaty. So your psychological explanation of the perceived connection between banned chemical weapons and the use of incendiaries in Iraq falls apart.

And so there’s no confusion about this, let me quote the treaty in full:

182

How odd. It now seems that a Washington Post article detailing the American use of WP was published on 9 November, 2004. The RAI story aired exactly a year later.

I have no idea if this is somehow significant. Just strange.

I also note that I am playing that FPS game “First to Fight” for the Mac. When the Marines call in artillery it is always three rounds of HE and three of WP. \

Taken together, it is obvious that (as we vets have always said) the use of WP is nothing new nor noteworthy.

183

Doesn’t matter if its “new or noteworthy”. Doesn’t matter if we have a stack of cites, proving its international legality and rock-solid bona fides. Doesn’t matter what our enemies think of it.

What matters is what the Iraqis think. What matters is how this affects the opinions of those who don’t hate us yet! What matters is whether or not each shell we lob into a civilian neighborhood (and, in an insurgency, they pretty much all are…) kills three insurgents while creating five more.

That’s what matters.

184

Oh hardy har har. :smiley:

185

I agree. That’s why I’m so annoyed by this story. It’s a false story that tends to reduce the already slim odds that the Iraqi’s will be able to salvage something from this war.

If someone falsely claims that the US is using chemical weapons to massacre civilians, then retreats to the point that it doesn’t matter whether the US used chemical weapons to massacre civilians or not, what matters is whether people believe the US used chemical weapons to massacre civilians…well, they’re leaving out their part in creating that perception, aren’t they? Is the standard: Stop complaining that the US didn’t use chemical weapons like I falsely said earlier, we’re trying to deal with the fallout over the perception that the US used chemical weapons!

186

You fail to see two points : First, I doubt the Iraqis will be even marginally grateful if we slaughter them with only approved weapons. Second, much of the world AFAIKT puts incendiaries and chemical weapons in the same catagory; they don’t care that they aren’t legally the same; it’s just a nitpick to them.

We aren’t dealing with " the fallout over the perception that the US used chemical weapons"; we’re dealing with a reputaion for amorality and brutality, for a willingness to use any weapon on anybody for any or no reason.

187

Then why do they have two treaties?

188

I’m talking popular opinions/beliefs, not the law.

189

Yes, let’s do that, assuming you can rip your vacant gaze from the ceiling for a few moments and focus instead on comprehension. Look:

Look especially at the parts I bolded. That is a discussion about perceptions and how in many other nations this distinct line you draw between chemical and incendiary weapons is more blurry than you and some others perceive, although I already stated that technically you are quite correct in your distinction. And what do I get? Moronically tenacious accusations of telling a lie and of equating chemical and incendiary weapons, when in fact I did nothing of the sort.

That’s because you were unable to comprehend the argument, which I would have thought accessible to most readers. I clarified my use of the word “ban”, and I quoted the treaty in question that fully supports my earlier argument (that it is absolutely prohibited to use WP as a weapon against any civilians). What else are you complaining about?

Of course not, because the US didn’t sign it. It would be considered a violation by other nations that did sign, and I am quite confident that the Iraqis themselves would take a very dim view of the situation (as they have demonstrated by opening an investigation).

No, because the US hasn’t signed the treaty in question. But the US would still be held accountable or responsible on the international stage for engaging in unconscionable behaviour, and of course on the grounds of other international treaties and accords.

No it wouldn’t violate that particular treaty, because the US is not a signatory to the treaty that prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians.

With every sentence you demonstrate further reading difficulties. Let’s go back to what I said:

The claim was made not by me but hinted by the Italian news documentary (that casualties of WP included civilians), and in the footage of some of the victims looked nothing like soldiers. In one (poorly lighted) scene, the target appeared to be a group of non-military buildings. And so forth. It’s usually more productive to attack a real claim rather than a fictional one.

I would be really interested in seeing how you think it falls apart, because you have shown nothing of the kind. All you have done is ramble about waving your hands without maintaining a coherent argument.

Similarly, you forgot to include an argument when you quoted the text of the treaty that I had already cited. Nothing in that treaty contradicts what I have said to date. Remember I cited the treaty to make my point regarding the prohibition of the use of incendiaries against civilians. And I pointed out that the US didn’t sign it, which (as I have already explained) helps explain the differences in opinion (and levels of outrage) regarding the use of incendiaries.

190

Damn it, did you even read the treaty?

Yes, deliberately targeting civilians with incendiary weapons would violate the treaty. But it is clearly, plainly, and obviously not the case that any time a civilian is killed it is a violation of the treaty. Signatories to the treaty CAN use incendiaries (except air-dropped incendiaries) when civilians are present, as long as they take"all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects."

Of course the US isn’t a signatory to the treaty. But if we WERE a signatory to the treaty, our use of WP in Iraq wouldn’t violate the treaty. IF we were signatories to the treaty, bombing Baghdad Dresden-style would violate the treaty. We aren’t signatories to the treaty, but IF WE WERE, it would. Except we haven’t bombed anywhere Dresden-style. Killing civilians for fun with WP grenades would violate the treaty, IF were were signatories to the treaty, except we aren’t. EXCEPT killing civilians for fun wouldn’t just violate the fucking incendiary convention, it would violate the Geneva conventions and US military law.

Now, please pay attention, I know it’s difficult. None of the uses of WP would violate the treaty IF we had signed the treaty. Get it now?

You flat out stated earlier that incendiary weapons were banned in most countries outside the US, which is an obviously false reading of the treaty. Obviously false. Now you claim that of course you didn’t mean BANNED, you meant something else when you said banned. Fine, at least we NOW agree that incendiary weapons aren’t banned under the treaty, just slightly restricted…under the treaty you have to make at least a half-assed effort not to incinerate civilans when you’re burning enemy soldiers to death. That’s all the treaty says.

My contention is that the US made such a half-assed effort to avoid incinerating civilians while we were burning enemy soldiers to death, which IF WE HAD SIGNED THE TREATY (which we haven’t, but that’s irrelevant), would not have violated the treaty.

You claimed that in most countries both chemical weapons and incendiary weapons are banned, while in the US only chemical weapons are banned. That’s what I called you on, that’s what you said. It isn’t true, incendiary weapons aren’t banned by the treaty. You left a false impression. Your point was counterfactual. Now you’re backpedaling. Which is good. Backpedal away.

191

You are carping about nothing new, since I have already covered every major point in your most recent post. I pointed out the US wasn’t a signatory to the relevant treeaty. I clearly differentiated between chemical and incendiary weapons (and showed how the UN treaty bans [prohibits - get it?] the use of incendiaries against civilians) from my very earliest posts in this thread, which just reinforces the idea that this is a problem with your interpretation of my arguments.

192

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/gulflink/intel/950901/22431050_91r.txt