Whether we did or didn’t, God knows it was worth it. We stopped the terrorist threat right there in Fallujah, and have had a year of peaceful law and order in Iraq ever since. (I assume; haven’t really kept up with the news.)
Look, arguing about the war is beside the point of this OP.
The relevant question is whether phosphorus counts as a chemical weapon.
And it does not.
All things are chemicals. Are bullets chemical weapons because they are made of a chemical, namely lead?
Bob, you’re an idiot, and the title of your thread is a lie.
The idea that White Phosphorus is a chemical weapon is an old canard pushed by the old Warsaw Pact. You see the WP said WP was a chemical weapon so if NATO used WP on the WP, the WP could use real chemical weapons on NATO.
No serious student of war bought the idea. Maybe some Italians did.
If I’m an idiot, then so is the Christian Science Monitor, which I think is a fairly unbiased source. The BBC notes that WP is an incendiary device. I don’t know if it matters what you call it, it will eat the skin and muscle right off your bones if you get enough on. To drop such a substance on anyone is an atrocity, to drop it on civilians is a war crime. You can play semantics with the wording, but this is a pretty serious accusation and it warrants investigation.
Is this a fact? Or just your opinion stated as fact? Either way, and I rarely do this, cite, please.
So, its your claim that the insurgents ‘rule’ by the will of the people? Presumably you have some evidence that the majority of Iraqi’s support the insurgent…yes? Trot it out then. Otherwise your arguements is, well, ridiculous. ANY small minority group who is ruthless enough to attack its own population could thus make a claim to authority that ‘comes from the support amone the people’…no?
Sure it is Elvis. Keep telling yourself that Iraq’s steps toward democracy are equivelent to the old USSR.
You’d have a point if the Sunni’s didn’t have the ability to vote. Thus your ‘no role in a country other than to be subjugated’ is, frankly, pure bullshit. You might want to cast your mind back to who held the whip hand BEFORE the invasion (and for how long), and muse on what REAL subjugation of a MAJORITY was like. But you probably won’t be bothered, ehe?
Lets be straight here. I support the continued occupation because I see it as the best course available to the Iraqi’s to prevent what I think would be wide scale blood shed. THough I initially supported the invasion I long ago realized it was a huge mistake. Unfortunately for those of us who live in the real world, once the fuckup happened simply tucking tail and running away wasn’t a real option. THough I’m sure you wouldn’t shed many tears if Iraq completely disintigrated if we pulled out (more ammo against Bush for ya, right?), it would be more than distressing to me to see a full scale civil war in Iraq (and all that implies) if by staying the US can prevent it.
Whether thats a point in my favor or not I don’t really give a shit…especially if you are the one marking the points. Its not a point in YOUR favor on my score card to even say something this stupid. I’m sure you will loose no more sleep over my opinion of you than I will of yours toward me.
We never WILL have a clean record in war. No one can or will…especially when the other side uses the tactics they do (i.e. using civilians for cover, attacking without reguard themselves to civilian casualties, directely attacking civilians in a systematic way, etc).
WHo is pretending this issue doesn’t exist? What exactly do you propose…that every time an accident happens Bush comes on the TV and issues a maya culpa? Afaik when accidents happened (I’m talking about complete fuckups, not civilians caught in the cross fire) we HAVE attempted to appologize in the past. How effective do you think such things were to the grieving families?
As for whether or not the US has make more enemies, surely we have. We made them by simply going there, as there were always going to be those who would rather resort to the gun than by going to the polls. Let me ask you a probing question you most likely won’t answer: Have the insurgents made more implacable enemies of the Iraqi people, especially the Shi’ites? After all, they have been systematically and intentionally targetting civilians for over a year now and the death toll of direct and indirect attacks on the civilians by your knights in shinning armor in the insurgency are mounting steadily. Men…women…children. Not killed on accident, but killed when they look for a job, when they go to church, when they go to the market. Killed for nothing more than to prevent them from voting, from rebuilding their lives…or just killed to inspire terror in the population. Are THEY producing enemies do you think…or just the US?
You really want to push this? Loan me your magic time machine then since you can look into the future then. I can’t. Here is a brief passage from a Wiki article or you can do a search on google for other estimates (this is ONLY due to sanctions btw):
I’ve seen both higher and lower estimates. Iraq Body Count puts the current total of civilians killed directly by US intervention in Iraq (I believe this total counts civilians killed by the US AND by the insurgents btw):
That would then be one million deaths du to the blockade/sanctions over a decade. We could use that to predict that aproximately 100,000 were dieing a years (half of them children…so 50k children per year). This is ONLY due to sanctions of course…if Saddam got froggy with the Shi’ites again then the figures would have gone up. Assuming he didn’t, and assuming you accept the estimate, that would put the total of civilians dead due to blockade/sanctions in 3 years at something like 300,000 (150,000 children). Vs 30,318 killed due to military intervention in the same time period. If you don’t accept IBC there was another estimate I recall from a year or so ago that estimated something like 198,000 civilian deaths at the high end.
How does that match up to your magic time machine? WOuld the sanctions have stood for those 3 years? Would Saddam have played nice with his subjects? Would the population have kept calm and peaceful with no rebellous flair ups? Would no major disease due to the poor health of the Iraqi people have occured? Or am I dodging the question because I can’t read the tea leaves?
Going to skip to the end because this post is a monster already:
You haven’t been paying attention then. I didn’t argue we had to go into Iraq because it was a shit hole…I argued it wasn’t our problem if it was a shit hole or not. Just like North Korea. When the invasion first happened (and during the run up to the invasion) I argued that we needed to neutralize Iraq because it could become a threat to the US (i.e. it was in our selfish national interest) due to how unstable Saddam was, his location both on top of the oil in Iraq and Iraq’s strategic location smack dab in the middle of a vital natural resource (vital to more than the US btw)…and the ‘fact’ he had WMD and might be tempted to use them directly or through a third party. Once I figured out that Iraq DIDN’T have the things then I was pretty pissed off and withdrew my support for the initial invasion (this was YEARS ago Elvis). I currently support the continued occupation in the hopes that Iraq MIGHT pull out of the nose dive and somehow avoid having the whole country (and the region) go into the fire.
Really, I don’t know why you can’t understand my position on this as you’ve almost had to see me lay it out in GD any number of times by now as you and I frequent the same threads generally. You might not read what I say though, so perhaps you really don’t know. Now you do. Ask and ye shall receive…
-XT
Not at all. The relevant question is whether phosphorus is a proscribed weapon under international treaty. As I linked back ~page 1 of this thread, it is under certain circumstances. 90 countries have signed the protocol dissallowing its use in heavily civilian areas. The US is not one of those countries. That doesn’t make our using it right.
Nope. Doesn’t make our using it wrong either (assuming we DID of course). Using it indiscriminately of course WOULD be wrong…but I’ve seen no evidence we did. As there is still a Fallujah I’d have to say that we DIDN’T us it (or anything else) indiscriminately. YMMV on that of course and if you can get some hard evidence that we did I’ll gladly come back and say we were wrong to do so.
-XT
Sure, we’re pretty much in agreement. I just object to people trying to shrug the whole thing off because some journalists used the wrong words to describe white phosphorous weapons.
And when a bullet enters the body, it tears apart flesh and muscle and shatters bone.
Is, therefore, shooting someone in war an atrocity?
If civilians are shot in war, is that a war crime?
No, bullets are comparatively merciful. In many cases, death is immediate and painless. At worst, it does massive damage which may cause a lingering death or give hope for saving. Putting chemical agents on flesh that eat the tissues from the bone cause a great deal more pain than a bullet would. Why do we abhor torture? Because it causes its recipients a excessive pain. I think similar logic should apply to chemical weapons- they cause excessive pain and are inhumane.
Civilians shot due to their being in proximity to military units is an unfortunate aspect of war. Deliberately shooting civilians is another.
As I recall, 70 % of Fallujah was destroyed. For that matter, Hiroshima is still around, so let’s not claim that WP and napalm would have left nothing but a charred spot on the ground.
Depends on which region, or pocket, you’re talking about. If you see the population of Iraq as essentially monolithic, or even essentially homogeneous, you’re down the wrong track already.
Essentially that the insurgency is a Sunni operation, targeting the Shiites and their sponsors, namely us.
What is “its own population”? If the underlying problem is that the group in question has no role permitted to it in governing the country, then those that do are still “its own population” in what way? I’ve tried to get into the meaning of democracy with you before, and I don’t think we have quite the same level of understanding of it.
Iran would have been a much more apt comparison, granted. Look at who’s in charge of Iraq now (the Shiites, outside Kurdistan) and who’s sponsoring the major Shiite parties - the Iranian theocracy. Extrapolate appropriately.
Say that again when the Shiite theocracy is in full control.
Bite me. The Baathists (Saddam wasn’t the first, if you’d be bothered to cast your mind back) took control of the army, and armies are very effective at taking control of countries with weak central governments, like the one the British left there after carving up the Ottoman Empire. For generations, the Sunnis controlling the army kept it Sunni-controlled. We eliminated the army, and now the only effective central organizing force that intends to stay there is the Iranian Shiite theocracy. Yes, that was subjugation of a majority. Why do you think there’s a point in comparing it to subjugation of a minority? Is the country going to be better off?
They don’t have wide scale blood shed now? At some point you do have to start wondering if we’re simply intensifying and prolonging the problem, not dealing with it.
It would involve intense national humiliation, sure - but we’ve been through that and emerged stronger before. Was pulling out of Vietnam “not a real option” either?
Bite me harder. I am convinced we are doing more harm than good, and if you really think my negative feelings about Bush are the cause rather than the result of that conclusion, it’s not clear that attempting to engage you in an adult discussion is useful.
Okay then, on what basis do think that’s happening?
Sure, but we fucking have to at least try. You seem to advocate not caring any longer.
Anything at all will do for a start - but we’re talking about ol’ “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job here”, aren’t we?
Yes, in the past. And they’re not trying to kill us now. The appropriate inference is, therefore …
Considering that they had decades to suppress the Shiites, there might not be much difference. The intensification rather than easing of those tensions is the problem, and we’ve done nothing but exacerbate it.
What’s your definition of “civilian” here?
Fuck you, asshat. Since that’s the level you’re determined to stay on, I’m done wasting time on you.
First of all, I know in movies people get shot and just die peacefully. But unless you’re shot in the head or the heart it’s going to take a while to die. If you’re lucky you’ll become unconscious quickly due to massive blood loss. But getting your arm or leg shredded by a bullet isn’t exactly painless.
White Phosphorus isn’t a “chemical agent”. White phosphorus is an incindiary. It doesn’t “eat the tissues from the bone”, it BURNS. Yeah, getting your tissues destroyed by fire is pretty damn painful, so is getting your tissues destroyed by bullets.
If you think the US shouldn’t use incendiary weapons, feel free to argue for that. Feel free to post reports about the US using incendiary weapons in Iraq and how we should stop doing that, or how we should join the convention against incendiary weapons. The lie is calling WP a chemical weapon, when you know perfectly well it is not, any more than bombs, napalm, or bullets are chemical weapons. Are the rioting kids in Paris using chemical weapons when they burn cars with petrol bombs? If the burning chemical in a petrol bomb gets on you it will eat away at your tissues, right?
And here I agree with you 100%. If someone deliberately dumped WP on a bunch of civilians, or if they used WP with reckless disregard for the presence of civilians, then they commited a crime. The exact same crime as if they shot or bombed or napalmed or bayonetted civilians.
Glad we found something to agree on.
The term “chemical weapon” wasn’t my invention, it came from Italian television and has been picked up and used by some mainstream media. If you don’t like the term, fine. But I’m not the only one using it.
Guess if I have to pick getting burned or shot, I’ll take shot please. You might feel different.
The rioters in Paris using petrol bombs are criminals, although their cause has some sympathy from me. There’s a difference between individual criminals use of such weapons and governments. I’m not too up on petrol bombs, but presumably if you can get rinse it off you’re done burning. WP isn’t stopped that easily.
I guess I’d call napalm a chemical weapon too. You may not. I’m less worried about the word than the effect.
Fair enough. Do you have evidence that 70% of Fallujah was destroyed by A) The US and B) By the US using WP/napalm? If so then present it and I’ll happily agree it was used in an indiscriminant fashion.
Who brought it to this level again? 
Yep, those are definitely winning arguements…very clasic. I suppose as this IS The Pit its almost obligatory to toss in the odd ‘bite me!’ and ‘fuck you’ comments. Hell, the mods might close the thread if there AREN’T any in the thread. Thanks for maintaining the high standards.
Seeing you in the Ohio ‘voter fraud’ debate though I know you are immune to logic or even good faith debating, so 'tis I who will stop wasting time on this hijack with you. Ado…
-XT
Wow. So will my gastric juices. If I hurl on a civiilan is it war crime? Ever seen pictures of a fuel air bomb? It does some horrendous burning and sucks the oxygen out of an area briefly. The fact that it’s a chemical doesn’t make it a chemical weapon. The fact that it can cause tissue damage doesn’t make it a chemical weapon. A regular grenade can rip muscle and flesh right of the body. A bomb can do the same. That doesn’t make them chemical weapons.
If Berlosconi still has major holdings on RAI TV, and considering he’s pro-Bush and part of the “coalition” forces, the release of this report through that medium is very interesting… hmmm.
ciao!
The efforts of the Bush apologists to spin this amuses me to no end.
Wait, did I say “amuses”? I meant “sickens”.
(And I can only imagine how the apologists would spin this if they were called upon it in the afterlife. “Yes, Lord, I don’t see what’s wrong with using white phosphorous to burn the skin and lungs of women and children while they slept.”)
And the efforts of the foaming at the mouth Bush bashing crowd to accept this story (and the obvious spin of ‘chemical weapons’) as gospel is…well, unsurprising. Nor is it exactly stunning that a hack like you would call anyone who doesn’t agree with your interperation as a ‘Bush apologist’. Par for the course with you…probably in rjungs book of debate, simply turn to page 103 (after cleaning the foam off the page), and follow the instructions on ‘drive by response to anyone who disagree’s with me’.
-XT