By the way, has anyone seen photos of Marines in Falluja wearing any sort of chemical protective gear? Gloves, gas masks, that sort of thing?
…you misunderstand and misrepresent my point. I’m talking about this statement from the US State Department:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm
What would you call this statement? A mistake? A lie? Did the State Department not communicate with the army before releasing the statement? From the rest of my paragraph that you chose not to quote, I was talking about "Incident after incident of Pentagon denials followed up by overwhelming evidence to the contrary." If the State Department had said instead “Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Falluja, against suspected insurgent positions and for illumination purposes.” would there have been a need for the the Italian Report?
Regardless, whatever happened behind the scenes, the official line from the people running the war turned out to be not true. White Phosphorus Shells were used at Fallujah fired against insurgent targets in a built up city. Should this blatent mis-truth just be ignored by the media? I bet you the insurgent propaganda machine hasn’t forgotten about it for the last year or so…
…love the word “needlessly.” I suspect you would argue with me if I made the claim that all of the civilians killed or relocated during the Fallujah Offensive were “needless.” The objective was to drive the insurgents out of Fallujah, and to “break the back” of the insurgency. What we got was only a very small amount of insurgents killed or captured, a city virtually destroyed with the population displaced, and the death and injury rate from the insurgency going up by 100% in less than a year. Last year an average of 210 a week Iraqi civilians and police were killed or injured. Last month, that average had climbed to 420 persons a week. (Cite previous post.) So yeah, the civilians who died in the Fallujah offensive died “needlessly” because not only were the objectives of the offensive not achieved, but the inusrgent problem has skyrocketed in other parts of Iraq.
However, I suspect thats not really the question you were asking. The following citations provide many instances where the US account differ from the evidence found by other sources-and I do not just isolate this to Fallujah. The last cite I just threw in there to amplify the differences in the rules of engagement followed by US Forces and other Troops that are in Iraq at the moment… (More citations available on request)
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/resources/falluja/index.php
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq1003/index.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraqfalluja/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/etc/anger.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=3251554
…of course, if you are looking for absolute proof of “civillians killed needlessly”, you aint gonna get it from the above citations. What you will get are a whole lot of reports, eye witness allegations, etc that claim US troops don’t nessercerily clearly identify their targets. You will see a consistancy with the US responses, and they usually start with the words “in accordance with our rules of engagement.” So, when a car is shot up by US troops and a man steps out of the car with his hands in the air yelling “police! police!” is then shot in the eye, that is in accordance with their rules of engagement. And when the witness to that event is then beaten by the US troops, and that beating is co-oberated by a journalist who saw the soldiers kicking the man on the ground and verifed the wounds on the man later, that is left out of the offical report. Whether or not you believe the witness, or the soldiers, thats up to you. But the standard of proof to get you “outraged” may not be there.
…of course its not a smoking gun that will help Bush and Cheney face the consequences for their actions-its a good thing I never implied that it did. The case for war has so many holes in it I could fly a starship through it. Is the Italian programme overblowing white phosphorus as a chemical weapon? Dunno, I can’t speak Italian, and my browser goes wonky anytime I try and view a media file. Should they have reported it? Abso-freaking-lutly. The official line from the administration was that They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters." This, for all intensive purposes, is a LIE. That it was exposed on a Tabloid Italian programme a whole year after the fact, and not by one of the US networks is part of the problem.
…so if you consider that I’m “clinging” to the white phosphorus in some sort of “anti-GW” agenda, can I suggest you reread the post from which you quoted me? Firstly, I addressed the comments from Lemur866 in regards to what the Italian Report acutally said. I conceeded that white phosphorus was not a chemical weapon, but pointed out that that distinction would probably be lost on somebody who had just lost a child to the weapon. I then pointed out, that regardless of whether or not WP was used, Operation Phantom Fury was a disaster. Is that how you define “clinging?” Can you point out part of my post that is either not factual, uncited or not logically deduced?
UPDATE : Pentagon admits using white phosphous weapons .
I find it amusing that they use the same arguements I hear here; “Yeah, we burned people alive, but it wasn’t a chemical weapon; that makes it just fine”.
Or it could be because the vast majority of people aren’t schooled in the finer differences between corrosive/toxic/whatever incendiaries and corrosive/toxic/whatever chemical weapons. The descriptions of the effects are by no means identical, but their effects on the human body sound awfully similar, and both categories of weapons are banned. I can understand the outrage of people who perceive that using WP is somehow “OK” just because, technically speaking, WP is not a chemical weapon.
Objections to the WP idiocy don’t strike me so much anti-GW as anti-Rumsfeld, the man primarily responsible for the foolish mess in Iraq and the numerous objectionable techniques (including torture) employed following the underhanded decision to invade.
THE SHOW:
Now on to the TV program aired by RAI and posted in the OP. I highly recommend it - they appear to have an English version available now, though I watched it in Italian to see the original claims. I could only play it in a background window as I did some work, so I hope I have most of the details right.
The program opens with stunning archive scenes from the Vietnam war, discussing napalm and its subsequent banning among the International community (ex-US of course). Napalm is not called a chemical weapon initially – it is described as an incendiary – but by the end of the program there seems to be some confusion (reinforced by an appalled English MP).
The program investigates the Fallujah episodes, interviewing US service men as well as Iraqis. None of these interviews shine a light of glory on the US armed forces, though one US soldier mentions that the reason they had orders to shoot at anything that moved is that some 10-year old boys appeared to be armed.
There seems to be little doubt that WP was used as a weapon… there’s actually footage of the victims, testimonials from US soldiers and Iraqi victims (dead and alive), and background checking (including a damning letter by the UK Ministry of Defence which confirmed that UN-banned weapons HAD been used by the Americans in Iraq).
The program debunks the official army line that WP was used for illumination. It refers to WP at first as a “chemical agent” (which it is), not “chemical weapon”. Something called MK77 (is that WP?) is called a chemical weapon towards the end of the show, and the reporter then seems to conflate chemical with incendiary weapons (assuming MK77 is WP).
But it’s important to note this: the point the program is making is that WP was used as a chemical weapon, not that it necessarily is one.
IMO that is as bad as using the real thing, given that the effects and strategic applications are so similar (though chemical weapons, from what I have read here, would appear to be on the whole more dangerous).
By the way, let’s go easy wth the comparisons of FOX TV and RAI. RAI is in fact a respectable set of channels (the national broadcasters) that bear absolutely no resemblance to the sad communications joke that is FOX.
The MK77 is not WP. It is napalm. Which, it must be pointed out, is similarly an incendiary, and not a chemical weapon.
Everybody sing!
“Napalm sticks to little children,
All the children of the world.
Red and yellow, black and white,
They’re the same when they ignite.
Napalm sticks to all the children of the world!”
There were a numberof issues which made that untenable. The existing government was tainted through and through with Baathists, and that made their use unacceptable. It was felt (correctly, I feel) that it was more important to establish friendly relationships with the Shi’a than the Sunni, at least initially. We are training a new Iraqi army, one that is proving amazingly helpful.
Now this part we do have, and have done, and are doing. However, it will not happen overnight. Even the U.S. of A. can’t rebuild an entire economy and infrastructure overnight. Heck, it took decades to run down; the war was a tiny little cherry on top. The good news is, however, that services are coming back at a fair clip. It’s just not something that will happen fast to the eyes of Americans, though.
As for the economy, well, Bagdad at least had a nice little boom.
As for the insurgency, there have been two. One is pretty much dead; it was the native insurgency under the Sunni. That could have been weakened, if not entirely prevented, but hindsight is always 20/20, and it was hardly clear at the time what path would be safest. In fact, come to think of it, it’s not clear now what path would be safest.
While the two insurgencies have some small lnks, they are distinct. The second one is what we face today. It is filled pretty much with only foreign fools. They are ill-equipped, ill-prepared, and not well-informed. Most are coming acros the border from Syria. However, their brutality and general jerkishness has actually made them targets for the Sunni. Since the people of thr region can quite handily tell them apart, it makes them easy targets. They do sometimes manage to set up their bombs and hurt some of ours. But more often, the very people they claim to protect are happy to ask for American help.
One last note: their bombs are not terribly sophisticated. The press sometimes says so, apparently confused by the fact that they are getting bigger bombs. But the ones they are using are simple designs, with only a new trigger mechanism (cell phones). They have been in use in African conflicts for years, which is probably where they got the expertise in making them, anyway. With the continuing disruption fo their bomb-making facilities and arms depos, they are making fewer bombs anyway.
Ahem. That’s Bob Loblaw. Not bob_loblaw. bob_loblaw is someone else entirely. For bob_loblaw’s sake, PLEASE don’t confuse the two.
Classy. I bet you really think that’s why we’re over there. To napalm children. And you seem to find this thought amusing.
There aren’t enough rolleyes in the world for this level of ignorance.
I’m sure ElvisL1ves thinks its much more humane when some of the insurgents blow up a bus or a market with children in it. Or when they deliberately target US troops passing out candy to kids so as to catch them in the cross fire. To him the difference isn’t that the US doesn’t deliberately target children while the insurgents do…its that its all the US’s fault. But for our intervention all those kids would be happily starving or dieing of disease under the old sanction system (MUCH more humane) and he could carry on without having to disturb his slumber.
Well, that and the US is just evil of course. It must be a comfort to be able to see the world as black and white.
-XT
Guys, *don’t * you think we’re supposed to be better than Saddam?
Let me point out that lying like this makes other atrocity stories that much harder to plausibly deny, true or not. If some newspaper repeats the claim that we used helicopter gunships to kill refugees on the Tigris river and we deny it, is anyone outside of this country going to believe our denials ? Nitpicking over whether or not something is a chemical weapon doesn’t make us look any more trustworthy, either.
And when obvious axegrinders like yourself start calling an incendiary a chemical weapon - that’s supposed to fill me with trust?
But it’s not. It’s being used as an incindiary weapon, not a chemical one. People dying or being injured by WP are not being killed/injured by toxins. Their nervous system isn’t shutting down, they aren’t suffocating because their diaphram is paralyzed, they aren’t having their organs liquified. They are being burned.
Just because a flamethrower causes horrific injuries does not make it a chemical weapon. Or a bioweapon. Or a nuclear weapon. Or a ballistic weapon. It just isn’t, no matter your personal feelings on it.
Would they believe anyway? Look how stories like this get jumped on so fast. If the US is involved then it automatically becomes big news with much chest beating. If another country is involved…well, you know, they can’t help it, they are just barbarians. If the US accidentally kills civilians while engaging insurgents who deliberately put civilians between them the shrieks ensue. If insurgents deliberately blow up a bunch of civilians or attack US soldiers giving candy to kids…well, its not really their fault, they were driven to it. Plus, they are barbarians. If Saddam uses REAL chemical weapons DELIBERATELY against the Kurds the world rolls over…if the US uses WP against insurgents and some civilians are harmed then the howls and foam fly.
Its a war folks. Nasty things happen in war. The US TRIES to keep the nasty stuff from happening to the civilians caught in the crossfire. Perhaps we could do a better job, but our current armed forces are oriented to completely destroy an enemy IN THE FIELD. Its very good at doing that. Its not so good at doing what we are asking it to do right now…but they are trying to do their best.
On the other side of the equation we have folks who are trying their best to instill terror in the civilian population in the hopes of killing off this democracy thing and either returning to the good old days when the Sunni’s held the whip hand over the majority of the population or perhaps installing a super-Taliban type state. Or maybe they are just killing for the hell of it, or because they want to bleed the US white, to cause mayhem and slaughter to make the US go back into its post-Vietnam shell and leave them a free hand in the ME.
I guess what it comes down to is what does the manner of death really matter (except for obvious propaganda purposes…as we see in this thread)? If someone dies because they are burned to death, blown apart by high explosives, crushed by falling buildings, hit by bullets that spin in the bodies and tear them apart, die due to toxic chemicals…or have their heads hacked off by a sword…what fucking possible difference does it make? They are still dead. The differentiator is the intend.
Did the US INTEND to kill civilians? Did it try to avoid killing civilians while still carrying out an important mission? Was the use of whatever weapons system indiscriminant or was it controlled and as precise as we could make it? On the other side, what is the INTENT of the insurgents? Did they deliberately attempt to use civilians as a human shield in Fallujah? Did they make a good faith attempt to evacuate all the men, women and children who were non-combatants in the city before hostilities or did they prevent them from leaving…or did they not care one way or the other?
-XT
I didn’t call it one. What you fail to see is that few people other than war apologists are likely to care. I certainly don’t.
That’s what happens when you go around claiming moral superiority; people hold you to a higher standard.
Killing people with incendiaries and cluster bombs is indiscriminate, not “accidental”.
Why would I believe people who aren’t bothering to keep track of civilian casualties are trying to avoid them ? Other than the word of the Bush Administration and US military - both known liars - what evidence is there that we care how many civilians we kill ?
Since we shouldn’t be there, no mission is important.
Did we ? Beyond the Admin and Pentagon do you have evidence ? I’ve heard to opposite claim, that we turned back all males of any age and forced them back into the city. I can’t prove either story - but the second fits in with American behavior much better. Compassion for foreigners isn’t a common American trait.
It needs to be pointed out that white phosphorus wounds are treatable. If a piece of WP gets on you it will burnthrough (slowly) until it is removed,, which can be accomplished with tweezers, forceps and so on. After removal, the burn can be treated as any other burn would be.
The fact that you even have to ask this question boggles the mind.
Of course I think we are supposed to be better than Saddam. And we are better. MUCH better. Is this even in dispute?
Another ridiculous, baseless assertion. I guess all of that money Bush has given to Africa for AIDS relief was accidental. And the money given for the tsunami victims. And any number of countless ways this country has provided, is providing, and no doubt in the future will provide aid to those in need, clearly demonstrating America’s compassion for foreigners.
But please feel free to spout your twaddle.
Good. Now apply that to the subject under discussion here. Where does that lead you to?