http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article328703.ece

Quote :

"US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon' By Peter Popham and Anne Penketh Published: 23 November 2005 The Italian journalist who launched the controversy over the American use of white phosphorus (WP) as a weapon of war in the Fallujah siege has accused the Americans of hypocrisy. Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon". The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders." In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships.""

US intelligence assessment characterized use of WP by Iraq as a "chemical weapon" in 1991
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10356665


So, if Saddam uses white phosphorous on the enemy its bad and it's a "chemical weapon." But if we do it, it's not a "chemical weapon" and it's ok. Hey, that's kind of like the torture. If Saddam tortures people, it's bad. It means Saddam is an evil dictator, perhaps one of the most evil in all of history. But, if we torture people, it's "good."

The proponents of this invasion of Iraq declared that Saddam was an evil tyrant who "used chemical weapons on his own people" and "who tortured his own people." And now we are doing the exact same things that we demonized Saddam for doing.

11/26/2005 1:50:07 AM

wasn't this discussed before?

11/26/2005 1:58:41 AM

you always have a way of finding the most obscure and least credible sources

11/26/2005 1:58:42 AM

Quote :

"you always have a way of finding the most obscure and least credible sources"

You're joking right? The Independent and the The New Zealand Herald aren't credible?

11/26/2005 2:04:48 AM

^^dude, just because a source isn't an American newspaper you've heard of doesn't mean it's not credible. not every story breaks in the US, not every story is covered in the US, and not every credible journalist lives in the US.

11/26/2005 2:15:42 AM

for once i agree with salisburyboy

[Edited on November 26, 2005 at 2:29 AM. Reason : wa]

11/26/2005 2:28:59 AM

last i heard explosives are chemicals

11/26/2005 7:01:32 AM

The American journalist has become an anachronism to the field of credible journalism.

11/26/2005 7:24:46 AM

Quote :

"you always have a way of finding the most obscure and least credible sources"

If you don't know about The Independent (the most respectable paper of the UK), you have given everybody the right to ridicule you if you ever enter into news/political decisions, TILL YOU DIE.

Furthermore, not knowing is one thing, but calling it obscure and incredulous?

Damn.

No wonder the world hates America.

11/26/2005 7:43:20 AM

is our calling WP a "chemical weapon" when Iraq used it wrong? Yes.

Were they wrong for using it? No.

is there some hypocrisy? Yes.

Is WP a horrible, terrifying weapon? Yes.

Are there some fundamental differences between WP and chemical weapons? Yes.

Is there anything illegal or wrong with our use of it now? I don't think so.

11/26/2005 10:43:18 AM

i thought only evil-doers used chemical weapons

11/26/2005 10:50:41 AM

Sorry, can't justify this. What a horrible way to die.

11/26/2005 12:54:26 PM

is our calling WP a "chemical weapon" when Iraq used it wrong? Yes.

Were they wrong for using it? No.

is there some hypocrisy? Yes.

Is WP a horrible, terrifying weapon? Yes.

Are there some fundamental differences between WP and chemical weapons? Yes.

Is there anything illegal or wrong with our use of it now? I don't think so.

11/26/2005 1:39:26 PM

^^ last i checked napalm is not WP

11/26/2005 1:44:22 PM

True, but you get similar excruciating death from WP even if its use can be pathetically justified as a "smoke-screening agent"

White phosphorus is a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus which has found extensive military application as an incendiary agent [1], smoke-screening agent and as an antipersonnel flame compound capable of causing serious burns[2]. Opponents of its use consider it a chemical weapon. It is commonly referred to in military jargon as "WP" , "white phos" , or "whiskey Pete". The Vietnam War era slang "Willy(ie) Pete" is still occasionally heard.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Incendiary_weapons)

11/26/2005 1:56:40 PM

Well, I guess there are some chemical weapons in Iraq.

11/26/2005 2:05:21 PM

Or not. I don't know what part of "WP is not a chemical weapon, and is not illegal, and is not secret, and is not unusual" you don't understand.

unless there's something to this (found in my buddy C16H13N2OCL's blog)...

Thursday, August 18, 2005
Gas! Gas! Gas!

One more thing to carry around. We found chemical weapons in Karrada last week. They took mortar rounds and filled them with some type of liquid. Actually, this isn't a bad thing, because detonated poison really doesn't spread much at all. Nevertheless, we have to carry around our gas masks.

sounds basically like they MacGyver'd some chem rounds to just blow up rather than properly disperse the agent. Still have to have the chemical agent on hand to do it.

Caveat: I haven't talked to Chad about that incident, so I don't know any more about it than I just posted.

11/26/2005 4:29:50 PM

just wait 'til we start using clean fusion weapons (small ones of course)... then y'all will really be bitching...

11/26/2005 5:50:00 PM