US forces 'used chemical weapons in Fallujah'

I'm not interesting in debating it either. I'll never see the connection, I know you'll never fail to see it.

What's done is done. However, there is still an onus on the US when it proclaims to be in the right to adhere to its own principles and behave honourably in war.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Neither do I. And there wouldn't BE dead Iraqi citizens (at the hands of the US military anyway) had there not been dead American citizens in droves. That kinna pissed us off.

And before you start defending the Iraqi regime from the September 11 onslaught...save your breath. Been there, done that, got the tour shirt.
Why don't you save your breath since you already know that Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11?

Gonz said:
If the people supporting the terrorists are in the way of killing & breaking, TOO BAD.
What about the great majority not supporting the terrorists? As many as 30,000 Iraqi citizens have been killed now.
 
flavio said:
What about the great majority not supporting the terrorists? As many as 30,000 Iraqi citizens have been killed now.

And where did you get that number?
 
Why isn't there a number also for the number that were killed in as much time before we went in?
 
White Phosphorus (WP) - GlobalSecurity.org

WP is a colorless to yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military is highly energetic (active) and ignites once it is exposed to oxygen. The amazing thing is that it is used in almost every product imaginable – from soft drinks to toothpaste. White phosphorus, a pyrophoric material (ie, spontaneously flammable), creates a smoke screen. Phosphorus smokes are generated by a variety of munitions. Some of these munitions such as the MA25 (155-mm round) may, on explosion, distribute particles of incompletely oxidized white phosphorus.

It's used to create a smoke screen. It is not an incendiary device that is used to blow something up. Gato pretty much nailed this one down. The Army does not use or even has any rounds in which WP is used for the purpose of killing. Ever see a bunch of soldiers walking through a smoke screen before? Obviously not. That smoke screen was made with WP.

Way back when, back in the M60 days of tanks they had a WP round. It's was a pain the rear to work because you had to set the range on the round itself. Say 400 yards or some such distance and the round would "explode" and create a bunch of smoke. Nowdays tanks use deisel fuel, a chemical, and squirt it onto the extremely hot grill of the exhaust to create smoke. So, I guess deisel fuel should be black listed too.

I know this because I was a GI. I know this because I was in the Army. I know this because I have experienced WP. Speaking from experience, the effects of WP are not what you see in that piece of propaganda you call a documentary.

GI's carry a couple WP grenades that make smoke, like red, yellow, green, and white. Nobody "dies" from exposure. Sure, it's probably bad for your lungs but hell, cigarette smoke is to! I don't see anyone carry out a jihad on Phillip Morris or Crest though!


Smokes obscure vision and are used to hide troops, equipment, and areas from detection. Smoke screens are essential for movement in city fighting. In the December 1994 battle for Grozny in Chechnya, every fourth or fifth Russian artillery or mortar round fired was a smoke or white phosphorus round.

Did anyone hear anything about "chemical weapons" being used by the Ruskies?


The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects.

I get the feeling though that your going to say how wrong this all is and how we murder people left and right and how we murder innocent children and yada yada yada yada.

I don't see the Kurds getting a lung full of mustard gas anymore? Wonder who did that? But, then again, according to this nice honest article, that incicent was only alleged. Never really happened. :rolleyes:
 
The Russians used banned chemical weapons to "solve" (i.e. kill hostages and terrorists alike) the Moscow theatre hostage crisis a few years ago. I would never be one to extoll the moral virtues of Russia's offensive against the Chechens.
 
Posty...teh WP in smoke bombs causes smoke...the smoke itself isn't WP.

white phosphorus a type of explosive round from artillery, mortars, or rockets. Also a type of aerial bomb. The rounds exploded with a huge puff of white smoke from the hotly burning phosphorus, and were used as marking rounds or incendiary rounds. When white phosphorus hit the skin of a living creature it continued to burn until it had burned through the body. Water would not extinguish it.
First aid and Toxicity

Burns to persons struck by particles of burning WP are usually much less extensive than napalm or metal incendiary burns, but are complicated by the toxicity of phosphorus (50 mg being the average lethal dose, LD50), the release of phosphoric acid into the wounds, and the possibility of small particles continuing to smoulder for some time if undetected.

The most immediate concern is to exclude air from wounds so as to extinguish any remaining burning particles—while the first aider takes care not to touch the WP particles. Usually, this is mostly practicably achieved by cutting off contaminated clothing and dumping it in a fire resistant contaminated waste bin, and applying soaked compresses to the wounds. Ideally the compresses should be soaked in a mild sodium bicarbonate solution to neutralise phosphoric acid. If the patient is to be transported, sufficient water must be provided to keep the bandages wet at all times.

As soon as practicable, remaining particles must be removed from the wounds. This is done by underwater debridement of burnt areas with tweezers or a blunt metal spatula. If available, irrigation with a fresh 1% solution of copper sulphate is advantageous as it reacts with any remaining phosphorus particles, coating them with a layer of copper phosphide. (This very dark material is easier to see, and also fluoresces under ultraviolet light, if available. Furthermore it provides a relatively inert coating.) Care must be taken to only irrigate briefly, however, and thoroughly rinse away the solution afterward, or there is a risk of copper poisoning through the wounds. If copper sulphate is not available, inspection of the wounds in a darkened room may reveal any missed pieces through phosphorescence.

Subsequently treat as for a burn, but seek expert medical advice to treat phosphorus poisoning. Avoid oily ointments until it is certain all phosphorus has been removed.

Afterward, ensure all particles of WP and contaminated clothing are decontaminated by incineration.



Finally


Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. [2] The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
The Russians used banned chemical weapons to "solve" (i.e. kill hostages and terrorists alike) the Moscow theatre hostage crisis a few years ago. I would never be one to extoll the moral virtues of Russia's offensive against the Chechens.
I gotta agree with you there man. That was some shit.
Don't look for me to visit Chechnya Anytime. I've heard some stuff from
there that I DO believe. :bolt:
 
I dunno, cat. The MOAB would basically blow you to bits...shrapnel damage and collapsed buildings. WP on the skin burns and doesn't stop burning.

Dying by fire is one of the worst ways to go that I can think of...this is pretty damn close to that.

Did they ever drop the MOAB?
 
it depends on how close you are to it I guess.
No, I don't think they ever did....yet

Edit: also that Daisycutter would be way more scary to me.
 
catocom said:
it depends on how close you are to it I guess.
No, I don't think they ever did....yet

Edit: also that Daisycutter would be way more scary to me.

The MOAB is the 'new and improved' daisycutter... :lloyd:
 
we'll pull them nukes out
and then you can see some REAL destruction
yeah baby yeah!
 
Gato_Solo said:
The MOAB is the 'new and improved' daisycutter... :lloyd:
I though it was similar in the way it does, but my memory ain't what it used to be.

Hell, One of those planes that circle (forgot thr name) that have all the big-ass
machine-guns would be scarier than that to me. I hear they can put holes in every
sp ft of an acre in just a minute or 2.
 
catocom said:
I though it was similar in the way it does, but my memory ain't what it used to be.

Hell, One of those planes that circle (forgot thr name) that have all the big-ass
machine-guns would be scarier than that to me. I hear they can put holes in every
sp ft of an acre in just a minute or 2.

The AC-130 Spectre/Spooky...
 
Gato_Solo said:
The MOAB is the 'new and improved' daisycutter... :lloyd:
Nah...the Daisy Cutter had a job beyond just blowin' shit up... it was supposed to be a way to automaticly clear a spot for a runway/landing field without damamging the ground. The MOAB wouldn't leave a clean landing area.
 
Back
Top