the us is involved with removing mines that other countries have placed

11/8/2005 11:13:37 AM

Dude TheDuke, you need to brush up on your military knowledge.

Quote :

"in fact, i'd wager that since cluster bombs are basically an anti-personnel/soft target weapon, they might even be good in some urban scenarios because they probably wouldn't destroy buildings and kill unintended victims in those buildings. that's just me guessing, though."

Dude cluster bombs are the mother of all evil. In an urban setting they are a no-no (but of course, the US has used them countless times, and killed and mutilated thousands of civilians because of them).

When it explodes some distance above ground, it releases 200 bomblets, each the size of a tennis ball. Then each bomblet fragments, releasing 50-100 razor-sharp shrapnel, EACH CAPABLE OF KILLING OR MAIMING.

That's 10-20,000 pieces of razor-sharp metal shrapnel from one bomb.

Imagine forcefully scattering 10,000 knives over a large area populated with humans. They go inside buildings and kill, dude.

Forgot to say, these fragments are distributed over a HUGE AREA (can't remember how much, but something like 1/4 km by 1/4 km... maybe 1/2 by 1/2).

So you see how it kills civilians?

Quote :

"Mines are not the monster you think"

Is that why there is an anti-mine treaty and the US is refusing to ratify it?

Is that why mines kill and maim hundreds of thousands each year all over the world, especially in Cambodia and Vietnam?

Or are these some other kind of mines?

11/8/2005 11:13:39 AM

Those are different types of mines than what we use. THOSE mines are BAD SHIT.

and i know how cluster bombs work. i'm just saying that i wonder if they actually have utility in certain urban scenarios in terms of minimalizing collateral damage (versus hitting it with HE bombs or arty). i don't know that for a fact--i'm just thinking out loud.

if we wanted to totally wipe out 10 blocks of a city, it wouldn't be hard, and cluster bombs wouldn't be the way to do it. that's why i make my earlier speculation.

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 11:16 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 11:19 AM. Reason : prob with cluster bombs is prob unexploded submunitions, and i don't know how big of a prob it is]

11/8/2005 11:15:16 AM

Quote :

"an entire city the size of Fallujah is not a military target, and your second statement is TOTALLY wrong."

i dunno. IIRC, the insurgents use fallujah because it is a holy city. They use the entire fucking city, which pretty much makes the whole damned thing a target. You can attack pretty much anything in that city and you will likely be hitting a military asset. That civilians are also all over the fucking place is the reason the insurgents use the city!

Quote :

"Is that why there is an anti-mine treaty and the US is refusing to ratify it?"

actually, no. We refuse to ratify it probably because the treaty is way too fucking broad, or maybe even just plain shitty.

Quote :

"Is that why mines kill and maim hundreds of thousands each year all over the world, especially in Cambodia and Vietnam?"

Depends on which mines you are talking about. There are no claymore mines killing people in vietnam unless the person who put that mine there wanted to kill those people. Thats how a claymore works.

Quote :

"Or are these some other kind of mines?"

Short answer? yes, read theDuke's post

11/8/2005 11:15:53 AM

aaronburro i know you are trying to help, but it scares me when you are on the same side of an argument as me. i just keep waiting for you to say something stupid that will incriminate me by association
could you just stick to another thread

11/8/2005 11:17:44 AM

OK, I stand corrected on the mines.

But cluster bombs... they are evil. Those who drop them are evil. Those who order them to be dropped are evil. And the head honcho of all the droppers and orderers is evil.

I am finito with this thread.

I have been up for 22 hours.

11/8/2005 11:19:00 AM

beast evil or animal evil

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 11:19 AM. Reason : haha i crack myself up]

11/8/2005 11:19:33 AM

Duh... beast!

(The insurgents are animals, remember. And BEAST >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANIMAL from previous page)

11/8/2005 11:21:06 AM

there's nothing wrong with cluster bombs. it might not be ok to use them in an urban environment, but if you know there aren't any civilians around, they're great

11/8/2005 11:23:36 AM

You missed my post on the previous page where I said that they have been dropped over cities resulting in thousands dead or maimed civilians.

Look up pics on google on what they do to children and women.

11/8/2005 11:25:50 AM

see OEP acts like a town full of insurgents isn't the problem

if their pussy asses wouldn't hide behind civilians, civilians wouldn't be getting hurt

is it bad that civvies are getting killed? yes.

should we stop going after they bad guys because of that? HELL FUCKING NO.

11/8/2005 11:34:58 AM

^ amen.

11/8/2005 11:44:06 AM

Quote :

"see OEP acts like a town full of insurgents isn't the problem if their pussy asses wouldn't hide behind civilians, civilians wouldn't be getting hurt "

But it's ok with you if the U.S. military uses white phosphorous (and napalm) on the "insurgents"? Didn't our same government try to demonize Saddam by saying he used chemical weapons on people?

11/8/2005 11:48:44 AM

those are only considered chemical weapons by whackjobs like you

11/8/2005 11:50:28 AM

Then why does the government and military LIE and try to deny they used napalm? Why try to hide it? The fact that they lie and try to hide it proves they know that it is something that should not be used.

11/8/2005 11:51:59 AM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm

Quote :

"US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq The Independent August 10, 2003 In-Depth Coverage By Andrew Buncombe American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions. The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy. A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war. The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad. "We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect." A reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald who witnessed another napalm attack on 21 March on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill, close to the Kuwaiti border, wrote the following day: "Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. 'I pity anyone who is in there,' a Marine sergeant said. 'We told them to surrender.'" At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. "We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on 4 April, 2001," it said. The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war. "

11/8/2005 11:53:25 AM

they lie and try to cover it up because the average person is a fucking pussy who can't stomach the idea that killing someone with fire is very little different than killing someone with a bullet or bomb.

if it's worth that person's death to achieve whatever objective you are after, then who gives a shit HOW they died. they are the enemy.

real chemical weapons are a different story.

11/8/2005 11:56:16 AM

i don't know about napalm, in terms of whether or not they used it, what they've said about using it, and the legalities of using it.

but WP is totally legal and totally normal to use, and nobody has suggested otherwise except the nuts like you who are trying to invent problems.

furthermore, using a legal weapon against combatants is a wholly different deal than using an illegal weapon for genocide. i can't believe you were dumb enough to compare our using WP to Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds.

11/8/2005 11:56:54 AM

I'm glad they dropped it on iraqi troop positions. If that saved 1 american life... then good.

11/8/2005 12:07:06 PM

Quote :

"those are only considered chemical weapons by whackjobs like you"

You are arguing semantics and technicalities. But, I didn't say that napalm was a "chemical" weapon. Napalm may not "technically" be classified as a "chemical" weapon under the accepted definition of that term, but that says nothing about the horrific nature of napalm and whether it should or should not be used in battle.

Anyway, a strong argument can be made that white phosphorous IS a "chemical" weapon.

The The CWC Treaty (from the US Chemical Weapons Convention Web Site) defines a "chemical" weapon as follows:

Quote :

"1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately: (b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices; http://www.cwc.gov/treaty/articles/art-02_html"

Phosphorous IS "toxic":

Quote :

"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, the release of phosphoric acid into the wounds, and the possibility of small particles continuing to smoulder for some time if undetected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary"

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 12:13 PM. Reason : 1]

11/8/2005 12:12:10 PM

would it appease u if we returned to fighting wars with sticks and stones?

11/8/2005 12:15:10 PM

i tell you i'm crying my eyes out

11/8/2005 12:15:36 PM

lead is toxic
it releases small amounts into the wound
therefore lead is a chemical weapon

11/8/2005 12:16:17 PM

^ haha omg i was just thinkin that and was gonna type it

11/8/2005 12:19:39 PM

There is something to be said for using cruel and horrific practices in war.

And remember this the next time the U.S. government tries to demonize someone else for using chemical/biological or some other type of weapon.

For example, how can the U.S. now condemn torture, beheading, etc. when they've been caught ordering and using torture on people? How can they now condemn mistreatment of prisoners?

It's a two-way street. If you are going to say that the "enemy" can't do all this stuff to us, then you must condemn our use of it as well.

11/8/2005 12:20:05 PM

Quote :

"lead is toxic it releases small amounts into the wound therefore lead is a chemical weapon"

Very poor argument/analogy. A bullet or other similar munition using lead does not CAUSE death or harm by use of lead. Lead from bullets does not cause harm unless used in poorly ventilated areas.

White Phosphorous munitions, BY CONTRAST, cause harm via the toxic properties of white phosphorous....just like mustard or cyanide gas causes harm via the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals.


[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 12:26 PM. Reason : 3]

11/8/2005 12:22:28 PM

umm... explain to me what part of a WAR is NOT "cruel and horrific"

it's war. it's purpose is to kill people.

i swear if your iq is as high as room temperature it's a vast improvement over what it appears.

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 12:23 PM. Reason : *]

11/8/2005 12:23:40 PM

the toxic properties of phosphorus dont cause harm either
so im glad we agree that its a stupid argument

11/8/2005 12:25:51 PM

Quote :

"umm... explain to me what part of a WAR is NOT "cruel and horrific" it's war. it's purpose is to kill people."

You think I don't know that?

We're making a distinction here between conventional and acceptable methods of warfare and UNacceptable ones (such as use of chemical and biological weapons, and use of torture of prisoners).

Can you understand this?

11/8/2005 12:26:00 PM

right, so who here is arguing that we should use chemical or biological weapons, or torture prisoners?

11/8/2005 12:26:56 PM

can you understand you are using the concept of chemical and biological warfare incorrectly?

11/8/2005 12:27:23 PM

Quote :

"can you understand you are using the concept of chemical and biological warfare incorrectly?"

Why don't you tell me, genius.

11/8/2005 12:30:17 PM

besides the fact that WP is not designed to kill people by poisoning them (which, in and of itself, makes little or no difference to me. i don't really care that much how bad guys die...burning, poisoning, physical trauma. does it really make a difference?), and the fact that it is a perfectly legal weapon, it is far, FAR more precise than chemical or biological weapons.

i mean, it's not a shot from a sniper's rifle, but it's relatively accurate, and the potential for collateral damage is much, much less than with NBC.

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 12:31 PM. Reason : asdf]

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 12:33 PM. Reason : modern artillery is VERY accurate. the affected area is moderately large, but fairly predictable]

11/8/2005 12:30:27 PM

Quote :

"the toxic properties of phosphorus dont cause harm either so im glad we agree that its a stupid argument"

We DON'T agree.

So, you agree that phosphorous is toxic, but claim it doesn't cause any harm?

http://www.nsc.org/library/chemical/phsphor.htm

Quote :

"Small amounts of white phosphorus had been used as rat and roach poisons, and in fireworks, but are no longer used for this. In the past, white phosphorus was used to make matches, but another chemical with fewer harmful health effects has replaced it. [...] Because of its high reactivity with oxygen in air, white phosphorus is generally stored under water. It is also incompatible or reactive with oxidizers, including elemental sulfur and strong caustics. It is considered a dangerous disaster hazard because it emits highly toxic fumes. "

Hmmmmm. Sounds like it doesn't cause any harm. Sure.

11/8/2005 12:33:55 PM

really the only way its dangerous is if you eat it

if i were you and picking something to attack id go with phosphoric acid which will cause burns

but i dont want to do your job for you

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 12:44 PM. Reason : i should have replied: OMF MODUS OPERANDI PEOPLE EAT WHITE PETE]

11/8/2005 12:37:11 PM

Quote :

"Why don't you tell me, genius."

i already posted a link that explains exactly what chemical weapons are and why and what is banned

and we all know you love links

11/8/2005 12:39:01 PM

yes. and by the way its old news, whenever us forces command a falluja type operation.. here u go... the same argument was used against sadaam, now whos hypocrite?












there is alot more on this... see dahr jamail website, for pictures.


http://www.uruknet.com/?s1=1&p=17559&s2=07

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2005 12:46:11 PM

o how i love aliases

11/8/2005 12:48:13 PM

Quote :

"the same argument was used against sadaam, now whos hypocrite? "

yeah this is exactly the same as the genocidal chemical attacks on your own people

11/8/2005 12:49:19 PM

i don't know about you guys, but i don't own any hypocrites.

oh and xyzabc beats off to those pictures. you know he does.

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 12:54 PM. Reason : *]

11/8/2005 12:52:28 PM

Quote :

"you wanna know a secret? the business of killing people is fucking ugly. sometimes people die in nasty ways. that's how war works. we don't do anything specifically because it's fucked up (toe popper mines, for example, or ANY non-command detonated mines that don't time out and self destruct, for that matter). however, not every enemy is fortunate enough to die from a bullet to the head or an explosion that kills them instantly. there's always the exception of a handful of shitbags like in Abu Ghairab prison (who are generally dealt with when they're found out), but doctrinally, we err on the conservative side, following international treaties, and sometimes not even doing things that we legally could."

Don't forget to tell Cheney that. He must have missed the memo.

11/8/2005 12:56:47 PM

Quote :

"there's always the exception of a handful of shitbags like in Abu Ghairab prison (who are generally dealt with when they're found out),"

umm actually no.. handful?, try all of them, except a handful who spoke up for whats right.
it was so pathetic, that many people knew of these abuses...even the red cross who reported it.... but was ignored and called 'absurd' by dod. (see any news source a few months back) even with that knowledge someone from the inside had to go public. the same thing in afghanistan, with taliban burning people have to catch abuses on camera before they say.. o oh and by the way, we dont verify your claim we are going to hold an investigation, same bs different day. it comes to a point where one finds himself drowning in lies... its really sad.

11/8/2005 1:10:19 PM

i wish you would drown in your own bullshit.

11/8/2005 1:11:43 PM

You're such a "loving and compassionate" conservative...just like George "I love torture" Bush.

11/8/2005 1:20:34 PM

you need to drown in your bullshit too, sweetheart.

11/8/2005 1:26:48 PM

BBC Picks up story of US Chemical Weapons used in Fallujah
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

Now, will the American "mainstream" media touch this? Or will it get swept under the rug like so many other things?

11/8/2005 1:59:45 PM

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rob_kall_051108_us_used_chemical_wmd.htm

Quote :

"US Used Chemical WMD in Fallujah-- video; US GI witness being swiftboated by Rob Kall Italian state TV reported this morning that the US used chemical weapons-- white phosphorus, which melts human flesh to the bones "I saw the burned bodies of women and children. The phosphorous explodes and forms a plume. Whoever is within a 150 metre radius has no hope," one former US GI, Jimmy Massey reports. Actual video clips (click image to fill screen) from the Italian Documentary, 'Fallujah - the hidden massacre' show charred remains of female victims and an interview with a former US GI. The Italian Documentary reported, on Tuesday, November 8th, that white phosphorous is supposed to be used "to illuminate enemy emplacements" purposes, to light up the sky. This documentary claims the shells were fired indiscriminately and the documentary claims to show images of Americans strafing the city with phosphorus."

Page includes link to video clips from the Italian Documentary.

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 2:14 PM. Reason : 1]

11/8/2005 2:09:49 PM

Jimmy Massey!

HAHAHAHAHAHA

he's the one that even the embedded reporteres that were with him say ALL his claims are full of shit.

there's a thread on this guy called "hey xyzabc, your boy turns out to be full of shit"

YOU DUMB FUCK!

11/8/2005 2:25:48 PM

I posted that article in the thread on Massey before I posted it here, genius. And, have you thought why the media would attack Massey? To try to deflect from criticism when the truth comes out about U.S. military crimes committed against Iraqis, such as right now? It seems it worked on you.

Think about it. The media issues an attack on Massey (even though various other sources confirm that the U.S. military committed atrocities similar or exactly the same as he alleged). Why?

Is the attack on Massey supposed to prove that the U.S. military DIDN'T use white phosphorous on Iraqi civilians and "insurgents" at Fallujah? Does that take away from the fact that they've used napalm on the Iraqis?

No, of course not. It's just a tactic used by the government and their controlled media to try discredit all their critics.

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 2:53 PM. Reason : 4]

11/8/2005 2:43:59 PM

i'm done with you. you are a fucktard.

you can go back to drooling now.

11/8/2005 2:55:41 PM