Chemical weapons are banned pretty much across the board. Even for countries that have signed the U.N. protocol, incendiary weapons are not banned. Restrictions exist for their use, surely, but they can be employed in war against legitimate targets.
In Gulf War I, napalm was used by the United States chiefly to ignite the oil filled trenches that Hussein had constructed as a defensive barrier. This was a use of an incendiary against a legitimate military target, and it drew no protest at all. Nor should it have.
You are stating that an equivalence exists between incendiaries and chemical weapons that simply does not exist, even for countries that have signed the U.N. protocol.
Give it up. Your credibility has long passed the point of no return. You are not the “patriots” you seem to think but rather a bunch of useful idiots helping to undermine everything your country’s supposed to stand for.
First off, even if the UN protocol is adhered to, WP isn’t a banned weapon.
Secondly, it is entirely possible that the manual in question was in error, or was superceded by subsequent events or legal interpretation. When I was in the Navy, a significant portion of my workweek was devoted to inserting changes into manuals and publications.
I’m not apologizing for anything, let’s understand. I just don’t want to convict soldiers in the press before people who know what they’re looking at (which does not include most message board posters or Italian journalists) check things out.
This story resembles the cluster bomb controversy of 2003. Although cluster bombs aren’t restricted by treaty, a lot of people feel they should be.
At least we’re not scattering dumb landmines willy nilly over Anbar province. That’d really piss people off.
Sorry to bring GQ into the pit, but does anyone know if we actually deployed those Matrix laptop controlled mines this year?
But this is a lie. Incendiary weapons are not banned by the convention on incendiary weapons. Read it and report back. The convention restricts the use of incendiary weapons but does not ban them. Countries that are signatories to the treaty still use incendiary weapons.
To equate white phosphorus with a chemical weapon is propaganda. Could you please undertake not to spread false information in the future?
So we should just surrender to the war against ignorance? What’s the point of this site? Or snopes? Just because people think killing a large group of people is genocide doesn’t mean we should give folks a free pass at using the wrong term.
Not at all. I made a few assumptions when speculating and I’d be happy to repeat them for you. MAXIMUM destruction by the US military would have left the country smoking glass with aprox 28 million dead (well, maybe a few would have lived). Maximum conventional would have left cities like Baghdad smoking rubble, their infrastrucuture completely destroyed…maybe 14 million dead (50% seems reasonable for this level of all out war, especially if you include those who die from disease and starvation due to ruined infrastructure).
My own assumptions were: A) We would be invading. Obviously if we didn’t invade at all we wouldn’t have directly killed anyone. B) We are indifferent to casualties sustained by civilians but we aren’t total monsters…some restraint would be used, C) We have a high reguard for our own troops and do not wish to inflict casualties on them at all if possible. We would look for ways to completely minimize casualties resorting to indiscriminant use of artillary, bombing, etc. D) No weapons of mass destruction would be used…everything else is on the table.
I figure that a reasonable casualty rate for such an engagement plan would be between 1% and 5% civilian casualties. How did I arrive at that figure? I extrapolated from some numbers I have in an old WWII book on casualty figures for civilian populations in total war scenerios (mostly German and Russian civilian population) then I bumped them down (they were obviously higher than 1-5%) because of my B assumption. This gave me a (very) rough figure of between 280,000-1,400,000.
Is it a WAG? Sure it is. Its what tiggers do best. But its not completely illogical as you assert. Perhaps you’d like to run through some scenerios where you think we could have done significantly better using your own assumptions.
No, I don’t think you could arrive at that conclusion except sarcastically. If the US was going to treat the Iraqi’s with love and tenderness we would not only NOT have invaded their country we would have lifted the sanctions years ago. And maybe sent Saddam some flowers.
As I said above though, had we done the things you are ranting about (such as use of nukes) would have caused far higher casualties than my own predictions. The fact is though that we have caused something like .02% (this is using the higher figures, not those generated by IBC (which would be aprox .001%)…figures I don’t really agree with, plus counting civilian deaths by insurgents) civilian deaths (casualties are admittedly higher…nearly double I believe) despite an invasion including street fighting in several major cities, then several years of a grinding insurgency also fought in and amongst a large and concentrated civilian population (most of the fighting is in and around Baghdad after all…the largest city). I don’t think its such a leap to see that had the US a policy of indifference to Iraqi casualties they could be higher.
Even in Fallujah we inflicted aprox. the same percentage (about .02% using 1000 ‘civilian’ dead)…its not a big stretch to see that if instead of sending our troops in we had simply using massive artillary and air power to bomb and strafe the city that casualties would be higher. We don’t even have to go to monsterous extremes like dropping nukes…just hold our troops back safely, maintain an air tight siege with respect to supplies coming into the city and bomb the shit out of the place. Lots less US casualties that way…if we don’t care how many Iraqi’s die.
Anyway, breathe a sigh of relief…I’m done here. I’m sure I have only earned rolley eyes for my efforts here, but I had fun anyway…and my plane will be loading soon. Hopefully I’ll have a better chance of convincing my perspective customer to use my company than I’ve done here.
If for no other reason than simple accuracy, I think it’s important to use correct nomenclature when talking about these sorts of weapons. If WP is classified as an incendiary weapon under international protocols, then it shouldn’t be misidentified as a chemical weapon in, for example, media reports, or in debates here at the SDMB.
Having said that, wherefore this sudden insistence on precise, hair-splitting technical accuracy, my little right-wing droogies? For years ya’ll been screaming “WMDS!” WMDS!” at the top of your lungs, fully aware that the acronym referred to a bewilderingly broad array of weapons systems, the overwhelming majority of which could never have been a threat to the US. Back before the war it didn’t matter to you one iota that you lumped nuclear weapons together with battlefield chemical munitions under the same three letters, and treated all of them as if they represented the same level of danger.
Why has precision become so terribly important to you today, when yesterday you didn’t give a flying fuck about it?
I’m hardly right-wing, nor pro-Bush nor was I in favor of the Iraq venture at any time, but it matters to me because the people shouting “chemical weapons!” are trying to draw some larger point of hypocrisy or irony out of it. “Look, they invaded because of chemical weapons, but they use illegal chemical weapons themselves!” Give me a break. That sort of shit annoys me. (Now, the hypocrisy on human rights and torture - that’s right on target).
The reason for classifying them all as WMDs was policy. After giving up biological and chemical weapons, a means of deterrence was needed. That deterrence was provided by the policy of reserving the right to respond to an attack with biological or chemical weapons with nuclear weapons. You gas our troops, we nuke your troops.
When did I do this? Please provide a link to a thread here where I screamed about WMDs. I’m not George Bush, you must be thinking of someone else.
Because the OP and the story he linked to wanted to give the impression that the US was using chemical weapons to massacre Iraqi civilians. You know, I know, and the American people know why they wanted to do this.
Except it isn’t true. White Phosphorus isn’t a chemical weapon, it isn’t a prohibited weapon even under the incendiary weapons treaty that the US isn’t a party to, it doesn’t melt people, and it wasn’t used to massacre Iraqi civilians.
If WP was used to massacre Iraqi civilians it would be a crime, regardless of whether WP is a chemical weapon or not. If WP was a chemical weapon it would be a crime to use it, regardless of whether it was used against legitimate military targets or was used to massacre civilians. However, none of those things are true.
Yeah, I know, the Bush administration lied about Saddam’s chemical weapons and they lied about the threat those weapons posed. Gotcha. That doesn’t justify anyone from lying about the US military’s use of chemical weapons. Your point is a non sequitor. Bush lied and you didn’t complain about that, so why are you upset now that we’re lying? Excuse me?
Don’t be childish. I qualified my analogy and explained very clearly, though apparently not clearly enough for the hard of reading, that I was not trying to suggest equivalence, but merely trying to explain the sentiments that you and so many others seem to have a hard time understanding.
You are correct in pointing out that incendiary weapons are not banned, but restricted. What I mean is that the UN Protocol in question bans the use of incendiaries as weapons of excessive cruelty which is the whole point of this discussion.
We’re not talking about using WP to destroy valid targets, or as illumination (for which I understand there are better alternatives). The issue is the use of incendiaries used against people that may or may not be civilian, which is the reason for all the upset. Let’s see what the protocol has to say about that:
The Italian journalist exposed the issue, which is the job of the mass media and an admirable one at that. The posters are now discussing perceptions (or trying to, at any rate) in addition to what facts are available.
Same problem of understanding exhibited by the poster addressed above. I advise you to pick up the valuable skill of reading for comprehension, and then look up the definition of “equate”. Thus armed, you might re-read my previous discussion and notice that your rebuke to me is nonsensical.
My point exactly. As is the case with too many of your posts, you begin from a vaguely apologetic position and follow that path until for some strange reason (that I doubt even you understand) you find yourself providing justifications for the blunders and reprehensible actions of those you tend to apologize for. Along the way, you often lose perception of how ridiculous some of the things you claim are.
Case in point, a WAG you’re now trying to back up with an allusion to data from a war that is 60 years over and for which many of the technologies, methods, institutions, and framework that we have today did not exist. Fallujah looks great compared to Dresden, yes? Oh, then it must be all right.
I tried to point out that you made up an entirely arbitrary scale, and your response confirmed it.
Well, I try to avoid WAGs, assumptions, and wholly arbitrary analyses in the first place, and thus spare myself the trouble.
Of course that was sarcasm (a sarcastic hyperbole to be precise), what else could it be? The point is that you picked a vague range of casualties and declared it good and acceptable based (you claim) on your own judgement and/or (I strongly suspect) on the fact that it is what happened and what needs to be justified[sup*[/sup]. You didn’t do any research and didn’t attempt to justify your conclusion. Only when pressed did you provide some vague discussion of how you arrived at your conclusion, which (as noted above) still doesn’t appear to be very informed.
[sup]* = like the time you tried to argue that it is perfectly understandable that bin Laden got away, and that it had nothing to do with sloppy planning and a reluctance to fight on the ground in Afghanistan. I think once you learn to consistently avoid these apology pitfalls you’ll do really well.[/sup]
Jesus fucking christ on an anchovy-flavoured bicycle. This whole thread is just getting downright ludicrous.
So tell me, if someone starts a thread about evil child abusers poisoning their kids with Zippo™ lighters, and someone points out that the kids weren’t poisoned, they were burnt, does that make them a Child Abuse Apologist? Because, hey, lighter fluid is toxic, right? Let’s just have a hugely emotional screaming match about how anyone who owns or has ever used a Zippo, or knows the difference between one and Cyanide must automatically also be a child abuser. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Lets not allow inconvenient facts or definitions to get in the way of our catharsis.
Maybe the mods could just save us some effort and create two threads every monday, one for hysterical Anti-BushWarCo shirt-rending and one for Anti-PinkoLibFag spittle-spraying. Or maybe just a link pointing to Fark for everyone to get it out of their system by shitting in an existing flamewar.
WP==Incendiary
WP<>Chemical
Use of WP against insurgents in trenches/spiderholes in city=Debatable, possibly immoral but probably legal. More facts needed.
Government press releases=Full of shit, not checked against facts, fall apart on examination. Big fucking surprise, what a new development.
Left+Right==Hysteria, emotion, total disregard for facts or common sense.
You’re certainly not trying very hard to raise the quality of the argument, are you? The above (bad) argument by analogy fails to take into account that harming the kid with a Zippo or with cyanide is abuse; and allowing the kid to hurt himself with your Zippo or your cyanide dispenser is parental negligence. Perhaps the point you were struggling towards is that owning a Zippo is fine, but owning cyanide is not? (Actually, I think it is). What does that establish?
Well DUH - it’s already in the Pit, and clearly beyond salvaging.
And the point that I was trying to make is that having some regard for the correctness of the facts being used in an argument does not constitute being an apologist or protagonist for one side or the other. But since everyone else is now so caught up about debating the pros and cons of the war and the government (again!), there’s not a lot of point bringing facts or reason or anything else into this.
Which establishes nothing beyond the fact that this is yet another pointless Iraqi War ClusterFuck Thread ™.
Well, I have to say that’s a fair enough point, quite aside the weirdo Zippo analogy. I myself was trying to explain how the conflation of chemical with incendiary weapons could easily arise quite without the need for agenda-inspired demonization.
Well, I support the administration and their foreign policy, so I guess I could be characterized as an apologist. I guess I’m also an apologist because I disagree with this thread’s title (which makes sense, since it is indeed a lie: WP isn’t a chemical weapon). And apologists are helping to undermine everything this country is supposed to stand for? We’ll have to agree to disagree on that, I guess.
Besides, I might be a useful idiot, but at least I’m useful.
As an aside, I give you this gem from a British newspaper wittering on about the British army using white phosphorous.
I can only surmise that some half-wit journalist has looked up Phosphorous in an encyclopedia, seen a reference to phossy jaw and stuck it in his article, without understanding that this is a disease caused by chronic environmental exposure, not use as a weapon. Phosporus is nasty nasty stuff, but surely people should make SOME effort at understanding what they are crusading about :dubious:.
