No. It is an incendiary round or bomb. Illumination is done using a magnesium flare, typically, like the classic star shell.
What excuse was I offering? I was just pointing out that this wasn’t a chemical attack as that term is commonly understood.
You know, it is a chemical reaction that moves the bullets down the barrel. Will we hear that called a chemical attack next?
No, it is used for smoke rounds. IIRC from my military serivice (20+ years ago) the smoke from WP is toxic.
Why ask a question when you already know the answer?
Translation: “Hey, they should be thankful that we didn’t just nuke the damn thing!” :rolleyes:
Depends upon your definition of “Iraqi government”, doesn’t it? It isn’t a given that the US-created operation has the only claim to the name - legitimacy of a government derives from the consent of the governed, as you may recall.
Not if you can recognize surface appearances and reality as distinct concepts. The USSR had a constitution and elections too.
Here we go. Buckle up.
And that is where you see how well the concepts of democracy have taken hold. It isn’t simply tyranny of the majority.
And that’s what you’d tell their families, I suppose?
At that point you have to do a coldblooded body count - are more people going to die because of your war than without it? We’re well past that point already, ya know.
The less killing you do in the present, the more likely it is to happen. You don’t do any unnecessary killing at all, and when civilians do die, you apologize and make amends to their families. You do NOT say “Hey, it’s war, people die, get over it” - but that’s what your prescription sounds like to them, doesn’t it? And are they more or less likely to participate in this democracy you flatter yourself that you’re creating?
Consider, if you will, that Rumsfeld never once disapproved a military operation because of predicted civilian casualties. Never once. Bush and even Cheney took no known interest in the subject at all. Is it more likely than not that this operation was planned without much regard for the problem, either? Is it more or less likely that we have created more enemies of our protege government than we’ve killed?
That’s my conclusion as well, but for different reasons - we’ve gotten more Iraqis killed, by far, than would have been killed if we’d continued to simply contain and disarm Saddam. We’ve made ourselves the bad guys, and I absolutely hate that.
How’s that workin’ out for ya, pal? No, seriously, I have to disagree there too. Basic morality, Christian as well as others, require us to do what we reasonably can to help, where we can, starting with realism about the facts on the ground. It’s simply what makes us human.
We needed to stop ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, we needed to in Rwanda and didn’t, we need to in Sudan and aren’t, but these examples are all in the realm of the possible - not by ourselves alone, sure, but in concert with the rest of the developed, allegedly civilized world. We can’t even do that much anymore, now that Bush has discarded the moral leadership that took us so many generations to establish, and now that a majority of us have actually voted to reelect him it can’t be dismissed as his problem alone.
But you advocate smugly pulling the blankets over our heads, telling ourselves "This foreign policy stuff is hard work’, and thereby rationalizing inaction. I can understand that but there’s no way I will defend it. It’s enraging enough that Bush used the language of helping others to convince so many of us that he really meant to do that. But the way one acts is what one’s principles are, and that’s what he’s shown us.
Do you really miss the point of this thread so badly?
Can you tell us what makes something a “chemical attack” vs a non-chemical attack?
I’m not an expert on these issues, but I thought that if some substance disolves your skin to the bone and it was used in war, that would be a chemical weapon.
If not, then what is the defining characteristic of a chemical weapon?
So, are piranhas chemical weapons, too?
If you think “who cares?”, then do you think all chemical weapons should be allowed in the battlefield?
FYI, I also thought this was strange (agreeing to one type of killing, but disapproving of another) but the international community decided against chemical weapons (and I assume the US too). Maybe they decided this way because death from chemical weapons is so much worse for the person dying than other methods that people thought it was inexcusable.
Generaly speaking, a “chemical weapon” is a toxin or other poisonous substance which injures or kills by altering body chemistry or attacking specific tissues (like nberve gas or mustard gas).
It doesn’t dissolve your skin to the bone. It burns it to the bone. Just as gruesome, but not the same thing when discussing whether a certain weapon type is legal to use.
Chemical weapons are weapons made substances deployed because of their toxic effect on living tissue. Phosphorous and napalm are specifically not classified as chemical weapons, but as incendiaries, because their damage is done through heat and burning, not because of a toxic chemical reaction.
That said, both are really, really horrible ways to die and the difference is mostly academic, but legally speaking, the difference is there.
No need for a translation I was pretty clear (and clearly didn’t say what you translated)…but thanks for playing.
Sorry, but the US-created (and approved by your vaunted UN) DID have the authority reguardless of how you want to hand wave. It was recognized internationally, even by those who weren’t too thrilled with the US’s invasion in the first place. Even if that wasn’t the case, what authority did the insurgents in Fallujah have besides the muzzle of their guns?
Uhuh. Certainly its an exact comparison… :dubious:
No need to tell me that…I did so as soon as I saw you had posted. 
As opposed to the tyranny of the minority who are expressing themselves by blowing up markets, slaughtering civilians on buses and assassinating anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Yeah…I see it clearly now, thanks. Wouldn’t want to do things at the voting booth when we can simply strap on a bomb and blow up a crowd of people to get our point across…
Thankfully I don’t have to be the one to tell the families anything. By chance, what did we tell the families in all the other wars that have been fought since man figured out hard rock against head is an effective arguement? What did we tell the families of the dead in occupied Europe (who were nominally on ‘our side’) when we killed their civilians because we were trying to get at the Germans in their midst? Whatever it was you could dust it off and tell these folks the same thing…for all the good it will do. Obviously when its YOUR mother, father, child, parent, sibling, etc all words are cold comfort…and the fact that you didn’t mean or even want to kill them means little to those left behind. By chance do you know what the insurgents tell the families of the men, women and children who they DELIBERATELY go after to kill?
What do the insurgents say? I don’t recall any appologies coming from their side of the fence. I agree that a nation state tries to hold down to a minimum civilian casualties…and I think the US DOES try to do this as much is as humanly possible. The problem is the military (especially OUR military) is a hammer, and when you swing it folks in the way are going to get hurt. I doubt that the US appologizing for every fuckup is going to make folks any happier. Best if we had avoided the whole situation IMO.
Well, I’m none too pleased myself. I think that ANY nation going into a situation like this (in retrospect) would be ‘the bad guy’ because there IS no good way to handle it…especially in that region. Again, best to have never gotten ourselves into it in the first place.
BTW, I don’t agree or disagree that more Iraqi’s would have died under Saddam than under during the invastion/occupation…we’ll never know so its pure speculation. And to my mind its irrelevant to the point in any case. Its not up to the US to try and ‘fix’ things…for one thing we aren’t patient or internally strong enough to do what needs to be done to ‘fix’ the worlds problems. It would take a much more ruthless nation than we have, and one more willing to do a long and nasty job and stick with it for years. For another thing its not our problem mon…nor our responsibility.
You tell me…hows meddling directly in Iraq working out for us? How are the half assed solutions served up by da World™ and the US working out in Africa? The problem is in order to really ‘fix’ things like North Korea it would take something more than talk and good wishes…or sanctions which seem to be our standard fall back. Same with Iraq. We could keep them down with sanctions and ‘no fly zones’ and try and help the needy with Oil for Food type programs (how’d that work out btw?). However, two things: First off, we were hurting (and killing) civilians with those sanctions. As many as with the invasion/occupation? Don’t know really…perhaps, perhaps not. Secondly though, we (the West) couldn’t sustain those sanctions indefinitely, even if we wanted too. Not with civilian men, women and especially children dieing because Saddam was such a hard ass and couldn’t give two shits about his people…not when there was another palace to build or a new weapon system to buy under the table from France or Russia.
So no…I don’t think its up to the US to meddle in such things, certainly not directly…because the US (and especially Europe or even the UN) aren’t well suited to such meddling. It takes people of sterner stuff to do something that actually makes a difference…and honestly, people of sterner stuff are probably those who you really wouldn’t WANT to meddle in another countries affairs. The North Korea’s of the world will basically have to look out for themselves and solve their own problems internally. All we can do is make sure that externally they toe some line of proper behavior and perhaps punish them with sanctions (how do those generally work out?) for things they do internally. YMMV, JMHO and all that.
-XT
Here is a (presumeably non-biased) story on MSNBC.
No, you fool, they are biological weapons. 
It was about the use of white phosphorus by the US in Iraq, not that your post had much to do with that. Why, oh why couldn’t they have used red or black phosphorus? :rolleyes:
Something about all this just doesn’t sound right to me. Phosphrus is used in tracers, flares, etc. It would take a lot of white phosphorus in order to use it as a primary weapon, and if you used it on a town, there would be a firestorm (think on the scale of Dresden during WW2). There would be nothing left to “liberate” or “democratize”. In short, there would be no Fallujah left.
Fuckin’ firefighters using dihydrogen oxide indiscriminately against peaceful protestors.
Great. Not only are we guilty of using chemical weapons but we’re also racist. Only the white phosphorus is good enough for Bushco, not that red or black phosphorus. Well, I’m gonna call Jackson and Sharpton and inform them of our military’s racist policies towards phosphoruses of color. They are so gonna regret doing that.
Besides, if the military was really serious, they’d just drop Phosphorus on Iraq and hope the collateral damage isn’t too bad.
Well, as has been exhaustively discussed already, WP is not a Chemical Weapon, just a chemical which can be used as a weapon.
WMDs aka NBC really have no place on the battlefield, partly because they are really not that effective unless you are planning apocalyptic WW3-style devastation but also because they cause horrific collateral damage to any civilians in the vicinity.
Capt. Krivda was inaccurate - they only took SOME of the gloves off. If they had actually gone all-out and used a chemical weapon like VX, you’d be looking at an order of magnitude greater civilian casualties than actually occurred. The US is probably capable of killing every human being in the whole of Iraq with CW, and doing so cheaper, faster and with fewer American casualties than have been incurred so far - it’s just that taking things to that level would be absolutely unacceptable to everyone but a few rabid loons. Wittering on about WP being a chemical weapon is just silly, and blurs the dividing line between really nasty behaviour and common-or-garden conventional ways of dealing out death, mutilation and general horror. Being burnt alive is not something most people would volunteer for but in war it happens to soldiers and civilians in houses, vehicles, forests, ships and whatever on a regular basis without anyone batting an eyelid. There’s a big difference between that and gassing whole towns.
As far as the various warfare conventions go, they normally revolve around the “I promise not to do xxx to you if you promise not to do it to me” principle rather than any particular moral or humanitarian concerns about things being ‘inexcusable’. This is true for rifle ammunition, prisoner treatment, CW and most other things - countries can pick and choose what they want to sign up to.
Don’t these conversations just fill you with optimism for the future of humanity? 
Incidentally, if anyone is interested, relevant treaty definition of chemical weapons. opcw.org is generally useful as to exactly how people are trying to control CW.
Believe me, after the horrors of the 20th century, this is nothing. Besides, this actually works. Even Hitler never used real chemical weapons. Reciprocation works.
This is actually why we have a huge disagreement over taking “POW’s” in the curent conflict. Simply put, my side (conservatives) do not consider them POW’s at all, but unrecognized guerrillas. And indeed, they do not obey the conventions of warfare - conventions whose sole purpose is to keep an armed conflict away from civilians. After all, regulations on vehicle markings, uniforms, weaponry, etc., is all designed to make them bigger and easier targets, so the enemy does not feel compelled to make mass-slaughters.
But I ought not to hijack this thread. Sorry.
Already stated. Governments rule by the consent of the governed. Is that phrasing really unfamiliar to you? The *authority * of the insurgents comes from their support among the people. Their weapons (mainly bombs, not guns, ya know) are the tools of implementing it. Just so we’re clear on terms.
No comparison is exact, but many are illustrative. We are reduced to bragging that Iraq is a fledgling democracy because they have a constitution and elections. The point was that it’s a façade for Iraq just as it was for the USSR, and it’s not to be considered an achievement.
You miss the point. A people who have no role in a country other than to be subjugated, one in which democracy means nothing more than tyranny of the majority, has little choice, do they?
Yes, you’re thankful you don’t have to personally accept the consequences of the actions you support. Is that a point in your favor?
Sometimes it’s enough, sometimes it’s not. When the deaths were avoidable, unnecessary, casual, even just accidental you do have to at least try. We’ve never had a clean record there; nobody has. But to pretend the issue doesn’t exist, that you don’t ever have to even think about it, is indefensible. So who in this Administration has said what to any grieving family in Iraq? Hasn’t the effect been to create more implacable enemies?
That’s the defense? That we’re no worse than they are? How convincing is that?
Plenty of evidence to the contrary exists, and it isn’t what we think or what the evidence is anyway that matters. Do the Iraqis think so or don’t they? What are we doing to alter their perceptions in our favor? Anything at all?
Yes, apologizing *does * make things not as bad, or why would anyone ever bother to apologize for anything? There is absolutely nothing to gain by defending that irresponsibility, and a great deal to lose.
Yes, we should have avoided the whole situation entirely. This is one of the many reasons why. But, once in it, we have had an obligation to act as honorably as possible, and we obviously aren’t.
Ducking that one too, are you? Sorry, you can’t avoid it - it’s the fundamental question. If the remaining rationalization for the war is that we were helping the Iraqis by securing their human rights, you have to start with the most basic human right of all - life. If we’ve caused more deaths than we’ve prevented, the most basic calculus underlying our only rationalization shows it to be a lie.
That flies in the face of our last century of history, especially the repudiation of the isolationism you espouse that came with the war. It’s been perverted many times in many ways, of course, but to claim it isn’t there or that we shouldn’t try is also not defensible.
Disastrously nearly across the board, as we’ve discussed many times.
Where we’ve tried, we’ve helped. We tried in Yugoslavia and the genocide has ceased, for instance. We haven’t tried in Sudan and it hasn’t. We’ve tried in Israel-Arab relations and we’ve helped - Egypt isn’t ever going to attack them again, for instance.
Sure - but when you can’t take on a problem, you do contain it. We’ve had NK contained, fairly stably, for half a century, or did until Dubya decided not to bother. We had Saddam contained, fairly stably, for a decade until Dubya decided to show his manhood. You do what you can.
Still ducking. There have been studies of precisely that, and although methodology and numbers vary, we do know the answer - and so do you.
Really? Why not? We were doing it.
So the disaster in Iraq is because we haven’t been ruthless enough? Really?
You’re completely inconsistent. You’ve argued that we had to go into Iraq because it was a shithole for its people, and now you argue that we shouldn’t go into North Korea because it’s a shithole for its people. What *is * your position?