Quote :

"YES BUT YOU SAY THE GOVERNMENT ALWAYS LIES! "

Not true. That's a misrepresentation of my position. I never said they always lie.

11/10/2005 12:29:21 PM

IMPORTANT NEWSFLASH: MILITARY USES LEGAL WEAPONS ON INSURGENTS

11/10/2005 12:29:46 PM

Do you say using napalm (or napalm equivalent weapons) on "insurgents" is "legal" also?

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 12:31 PM. Reason : 1]

11/10/2005 12:30:41 PM

im not an expert on the different types of napalm and what is legal, but so far i havent seen anything about napalm

i guess you finally read my post regarding the furst artice, huh

Quote :

"salisburyboy you realize the crime they are claiming is the use of the mk77 and not the white phosphorus"

from way back
took you awhile

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

11/10/2005 12:32:28 PM

No. I didn't just read your post.

11/10/2005 12:35:10 PM

Perhaps the most important part of this recent Italian documentary is the use of white phosphorous ON CIVILIANS. Let's not forget that.

The use of white phosphorous is "legal" (under UN or international "law" presumably) so long as it is used for "lighting" purposes. Not for direct use on the enemy. Use of white phosphorous on the enemy amounts to using chemical weapons under the applicable definitions because phosphorous is toxic and it will harm or kill people via its toxic properties.

Focussing on the supposed "legality" or "illegality" of the use of these weapons is only one indicator of the ultimate question...ie, whether or not these weapons should or should not be used. UN or international "law" is not the ultimate determinating factor of whether or not something should be permissible.

Most sensible people will agree that use of napalm (and chemical and biological weapons) is reprehensible and should not be used in warfare. The use of napalm in Vietnam has been widely condemned in the international community (as well as in international "law" I believe). The use of white phosphorous on the enemy should also be condemened.

11/10/2005 12:48:34 PM

see it's not YOUR definition of chemical weapons that counts or matters, sweetie

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 12:52 PM. Reason : *]

11/10/2005 12:51:50 PM

i posted a link to what chemical weapons are
look through it yourself, you will notice a lack of white phosphorus

11/10/2005 12:52:23 PM

And I posted the definition of what a "chemical weapon" is under the applicable treaty. The use of white phosphorous on the enemy fits that definition.

Of course white phosphorous wouldn't be included as a chemical weapon in any prior list, because it was assumed it was only used for lighting purposes....not on the enemy. This "list" needs to be updated now that the military is (admittedly) using WP directly on the enemy.


[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 12:58 PM. Reason : 3]

11/10/2005 12:53:46 PM

more on that Daily Kos story...

Quote :

"US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorus as Weapon by Steven D Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:48:58 PM PDT (From the diaries. Let's see them deny this shit now -- kos) That's right. Not from Al Jazheera, or Al Arabiya, but the US f* Army, in their very own publication, from the (WARNING: pdf file) March edition of Field Artillery Magazine in an article entitled "The Fight for Fallujah":"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/9/164137/436

the comments are more interesting, how people feel.. see on the orig. site.

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 2:15 PM. Reason : ..]

11/10/2005 2:00:56 PM

it's ok, we won't do that again

next time, instead, we'll drop 5000 pound bombs by the thousands overnight.

11/10/2005 2:13:12 PM

FAR MORE SENSITIVE PICTURES! regarding this topic

like this ... oil has become so precious that people are willing to do this, just to get it.



may God help us. See More images...

http://www.uruknet.com/?p=17582&hd=0&size=1&l=e

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

11/10/2005 2:21:46 PM

^ beating off like there's no tomorrow

11/10/2005 2:34:46 PM

White Phosphorus or Fuel Air Explosive

pick your poison

11/10/2005 2:37:12 PM

WP isn't a chemical weapon under any definition other than that of nuts like you. It may have toxic properties, but you don't drop WP to poison anyone. Furthermore, it's not indiscriminate in its application in the sense that chemical or biological weapons are. it can be targetted like any other artillery or mortar round (and that 150m casualty radius they cited doesn't mean shit. that's about the same as the published open-area casualty radius of a regular HE shell from 155mm arty.)

the point being, even if the shit is toxic, who cares? as long as you're targetting it at bad guys, who cares (ethically) whether they get blown up, burned up, or poisoned, or all of the above? the only sticking point is if civilians are targetted, which i can't POSSIBLY imagine that they ever are. accepted as unavoidable collateral damage, yes, but never targeted...and i've heard story after story of people going out of their way to minimize/eliminate civilian casualties.

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 8:20 PM. Reason : casualty, not kill]

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 8:24 PM. Reason : asdfasdf]

11/10/2005 8:19:37 PM

150m is pretty precise

11/10/2005 8:23:30 PM

yeah, and it can be delivered with pretty damned good accuracy, too.

a precision guided bomb from an aircraft is also accurate (probably more accurate), but not nearly as precise. the casualty radius on a small Mk-series bomb (500 lb) is still WAY more than a 155mm arty round.

11/10/2005 8:26:37 PM

"Shake and Bake"

Quote :

"U.S. Army publication confirms United States used incendiary weapon in Falluja 11/09/2005 @ 5:26 pm Filed by RAW STORY The March edition of Field Artillery magazine, a U.S. Army publication, reveals that the U.S. military did in fact use the incendiary weapon white phosphorous in Fallujah, Iraq, a Daily Kos diarist has found. Advertisement "WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition," the article's author wrote. "We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out." A second publication, Infantry Magazine, also alleges that white phosphorous was used near the Iraqi city of Irbil. Newsroom sources tell RAW STORY that the New York Times held a story they were scheduled to run on the weapon's use Thursday. A terrifying video about the U.S. use of the weapon in Fallujah is available at Information Clearinghouse."

http://rawstory.com/admin/dbscripts/printstory.php?story=1424

11/10/2005 9:47:32 PM

ur like salisbury; just pick and choose a word or phrase and then not have the further explanation or details to it. sometimes i wonder if u r really salisbury.

Quote :

"We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out"

11/10/2005 9:55:01 PM

i dont understand the purpose of continually posting the same article when no one is arguing with it

11/10/2005 9:56:47 PM

Quote :

"This "list" needs to be updated now that the military is (admittedly) using WP directly on the enemy."

Haha, wait, we've been using this on people for a long time.

It was bloody well used in the nice pro-Vietnam propaganda movie "The Green Berets" (and awesome movie, I must say, though terribly corny).

The napalm use shouldn't be anything surprising either, as we've used that in many past major conflicts as well.

They're gruesome weapons when used against people, yes, but what do you expect of our military? They use every killing tool available to them that isn't completely outlawed due to public opinion.

The only reason they still use it now is because nobody (apparently) was really talking about it when we used it in past wars.

Mind you I'm not justifying the use of incendiary weapons against people in war, I'm simply wondering why it is that you guys are acting like this is so very new and shocking.



Second from the left is a WP shell. This picture is from somewhere between 1920-1939.

I also wouldn't consider WP a chemical weapon, nor would I consider Napalm a chemical weapon. I'd rather they just be considered incendiaries (a conventional weapon of their own class), and those be considered something rather nasty and unpleasant not to be used in such clean conflicts as we see on the news nowadays.

11/10/2005 10:34:51 PM

Quote :

"such clean conflicts as we see on the news nowadays"

are you out of your mind? there is nothing about war that's clean or tidy. it's horrible business. it's the WORST business.

i'll quote myself...again.

Quote :

"Look, killing is killing, and dead is dead. Some methods are more distasteful than others, but neither our doctrine or international law makes anything more than a minimal distinction there. Some are more precise than others. A shot from a sniper is much more surgical in nature than an F-18 pilot hitting the pickle button with a bunch of Mk82s. However, we can't just send a quarter million snipers into combat every time the shit hits the fan. That would be nice, but that's not realistic. Basically, we just outlaw the MOST indiscriminate and lingering of weapons--chem and bio, and take steps to minimalize unwanted impact of other weapons, either in employment doctrine or weapon design (as in the aforementioned land mines)."

Quote :

"the point being, even if the shit is toxic, who cares? as long as you're targetting it at bad guys, who cares (ethically) whether they get blown up, burned up, or poisoned, or all of the above? the only sticking point is if civilians are targetted, which i can't POSSIBLY imagine that they ever are. accepted as unavoidable collateral damage, yes, but never targeted...and i've heard story after story of people going out of their way to minimize/eliminate civilian casualties."

11/10/2005 11:31:36 PM

Quote :

"are you out of your mind? there is nothing about war that's clean or tidy. it's horrible business. it's the WORST business. "

Haha, you just missed some of the most obvious sarcasm ever posted.

YOU PEOPLE

11/10/2005 11:41:02 PM

it's hard to tell sarcasm in a salisbury thread

11/11/2005 8:26:56 AM

I just want everyone to take a look at the date of this article. see, another good reason to look at what indep. journalists do report, 2004 compared to 2005. thats a whole year before it hit mainstream news.


November 26, 2004
'Unusual Weapons' Used in Fallujah

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000137.php

11/14/2005 2:25:55 AM

Wonder why it was Italian television that produced this documentary on U.S. Military use of these weapons on civilians in Fallujah? Remeber that Italian woman who was rescued from Iraq and nearly assassinated?

http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/

Quote :

"Some time ago Guiliana Sgrena got kidnapped by alleged insurgents in Iraq. From what we know about so much of what goes on there, there is no telling who these insurgents were. We’ve got a lot of evidence these days in the form of phony Bin Laden videos, fake Al Qaeda cells in Palestine that are staffed by Mossad members. We’ve got camouflaged Brits posing as Arabs with carloads of explosives. We’ve got far more evidence of consistent lying, skullduggery and horrific abuse than we have of anything remotely resembling democracy in action. Italian national hero Nicola Calipari rescued her and then died in a hail of gun-bullets courtesy of American forces. Much has been said about what happened there and the preponderance of evidence clearly shows that it was a calculated assassination attempt. You see, Sgrena had proof of a massacre in Faluja; proof of the use of napalm and phosphorus, proof of wholesale slaughter, the strafing of Red Cross vehicles, proof of ugly, ugly things. Now you’ve got the Italian film that shows what happened and takes us back to what happened with Sgrena, sort of like one and one is two; or is one and one still two? Beauty is only skin deep but white phosphorous burns all the way to the bone. "

INTERESTING. Think about it. Who really kidnapped her? Who's to gain from stopping her from releasing the information she had? Why would the "insurgents" gain anything from killing her? And if you don't know, it is well known that the U.S. military will "take out" journalists and reporters if they are ordered to.


[Edited on November 17, 2005 at 11:40 AM. Reason : 1]

11/17/2005 11:37:06 AM

Quote :

"Yes, of course they used banned weapons of the sort that we went into Iraq to find but knew were not there so… what the Hell, let’s bring some of our own and use them on them; we’re all about irony here. Oh, and could you give me a couple of cartons of depleted Uranium too? Just put it on my bill. [...] I study all of the incidences of Americans and others masquerading as something else while perpetrating the acts they accuse the people they are killing of perpetrating. http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/"

Right, the irony as well. Good point. Kind of like how the media and government will still try to condemn people for torture (saw it on the news last night), but then the Bush Administration will trun right around and say that we need to be able to torture people. I guess its "ok" for us to torture people and use chemical weapons on people, but its bad if other people do it. Do you see how stupid the media and government think we are?

11/17/2005 11:48:45 AM

Quote :

"Remeber that Italian woman who was rescued from Iraq and nearly assassinated?"

Do you seriously believe that if the 3rdID wanted her dead, she would still be alive today?

11/17/2005 11:54:07 AM

Quote :

"Do you seriously believe that if the 3rdID wanted her dead, she would still be alive today? "

Wait. So everyone the 3rd ID wants dead ends up dead?

11/17/2005 12:03:33 PM

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1928.shtml

Quote :

"Fire Bombs in Iraq: Napalm By Any Other Name Report, Iraq Analysis Group, 15 April 2005 This briefing examines the continuing use of incendiary weapons (“napalm”) by the US military in Iraq. While the UK government has attempted to downplay or deny the use of incendiaries in Iraq, US officials have been forced to admit using the MK-77 incendiary, a modern form of napalm. "

11/17/2005 12:14:52 PM

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/en/video.asp

This is really interesting documentary

its really sad what the americans are doing

11/17/2005 12:22:07 PM

OH WE'RE SORRY. WE'LL START DROPPING PUPPIES AND SUNSHINE SOON. PROMISE.

11/17/2005 12:23:53 PM

Quote :

"Who really kidnapped her? Who's to gain from stopping her from releasing the information she had? Why would the "insurgents" gain anything from killing her? And if you don't know, it is well known that the U.S. military will "take out" journalists and reporters if they are ordered to."

Are you suggesting that the military kidnapped her, then released her, and then tried to kill her? How does that make any sense at all?

Is she even connected to the documentary that you are talking about or are you just assuming that she is because both are Italian?

11/17/2005 12:55:45 PM

Quote :

"OH WE'RE SORRY. WE'LL START DROPPING PUPPIES AND SUNSHINE SOON. PROMISE"

That's your defense to killing civilians using napalm-like weapons and white phosphorous munitions? How pathetic. Would you brush it off in the same way if the enemy was using these type of weapons on U.S. troops?

11/17/2005 12:57:40 PM

me "defense" is that civilians are not specifically targeted.

fucking collateral damage happens. is it bad that civilians get hurt? sure. should we stop going after the "insurgents" with any and all legal weapons available? FUCK NO.

OH HOW WE LOVE PRISONPLANET!!!1

11/17/2005 1:04:29 PM

^^i, for one, don't give a rat's ass how an enemy combatant meets his demise. dead is dead. the only distinction in my eyes is whether or not i have a hand in killing him.

11/17/2005 10:37:16 PM

***************************************************************

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.""

Boo-yah. I hardly ever say I told you so, but I said that WP fit the defintion of a chemical weapon.

Wait. I get it. If they enemy uses WP, it IS a chemical weapon, but if we do it isn't. It's like with torture. If they do it its bad, but if we do it it's good b/c it's only "enhanced interrogation."

***************************************************************

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 10:05 AM. Reason : `]

11/24/2005 9:55:12 AM

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051123151258.txh764fg.html

Quote :

"Russian parliament condemns US use of phosphorus bombs in Iraq MOSCOW (AFP) Nov 23, 2005 The Russian parliament condemned Wednesday as "absolutely unacceptable" the use last year by US forces in Iraq of toxic white phosphorus munitions, which it said was prohibited under international law. "Deputies of the Duma consider the use, under cover of the noble aims of the fight against terrorism, of any type of weapon banned by international conventions, particularly phosphorus bombs, as absolutely unacceptable," a statement adopted unanimously in the lower house read. The measure was adopted after the Pentagon last week confirmed that the toxic agent had been used against Iraqi insurgents last year, although it denied that civilians had been targeted."

Hmmmm. Prohibited under international law. Well, US intelligence did say it was a chemical weapon (when used on the enemy) in 1991.

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 10:07 AM. Reason : `]

11/24/2005 10:02:59 AM

http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/Michael%20Fumento/2005/11/24/176690.html

Quote :

"White Phosphorus Charges Are Burning Lies Nov 24, 2005 by Michael Fumento Time again to try to cripple U.S. military efforts in Iraq! It's not enough that whenever we bomb a terrorist safe house we're accused of killing 40 civilians and no terrorists. (Why always 40?) Nor that we're told we must turn the prisons at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay into genteel facilities fit for Martha Stewart. Now the defeat-niks are screaming about our use of white phosphorus during the bloody battle for Fallujah last year. Capable of being packed into a huge array of munitions, WP burns on contact with air and is highly useful for smoke-screening, smoke marking, and as an anti-personnel weapon. WP is hardly new, having been first used in the 19th Century and subsequently in both world wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Nor should it be news that it was used at Fallujah. An article in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery explicitly details the use of WP during the battle. Yet it's being treated as a major new revelation because of an Italian documentary now available on the Internet titled "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre." It’s as if the use of WP necessarily involves a massacre or as if there haven't been awful massacres in recent years using nothing but machetes and clubs. Further, there’s no proof of any wrongdoing in the video itself. Rather it relies on “explanations” exclusively from the narrator and other anti-war zealots. This includes the infamous Giuliana Sgrena, the reporter for the Italian Communist Party newspaper Il Manifesto, allegedly seized by courteous kidnappers. In turn for her release they conveniently demanded what she had also been demanding, Italy’s withdrawal from the war. Her articles are so viciously anti-American they’d make Al Jazeera blush. There are several accusations against our WP usage. It’s allegedly outlawed by the Geneva Convention as a chemical weapon. Therefore its use puts us in the same category as Saddam Hussein – or so claims the hugely popular leftist blogsite Daily Kos. But according to the authoritative think tank GlobalSecurity.org, “White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory.” Is it a chemical? Sure! So is something else you may have heard of. It’s called “gunpowder.” And those chemicals used in high explosives? Yup, they're chemicals too. Another charge is that contact with WP can cause awful and sometimes fatal burns. But painless ways of killing and destroying such as Star Trek’s beam weapon phasers have yet to be developed. On the other hand, the vipers we cleaned out of Fallujah were days earlier sawing off civilian heads with dull knives. Sound like a pleasant way to die? Fact is, the soldier’s weapon of choice remains high explosives. WP's best uses aren’t against personnel at all, but to the extent it is employed this way the most practical application is flushing the enemy out of foxholes and trenches where they can then either surrender or be killed. It's also claimed that civilians were “targeted” with WP and the Italian video does display dead civilians. But how does this show they were the intended victims, rather than accidental casualties? It’s not like when terrorists detonate bombs in crowded marketplaces or at weddings, where the intent is rather obvious. Regardless of the weapon, how can you possibly avoid non-combatant deaths when the enemy not only hides among civilians but hides as civilians – in total violation of the Geneva Convention, for those of you keeping track. Further, the dead civilians in the video are wearing clothing. Both the film’s narrator and another of those defeat-nik “experts,” former Marine Jeff Englehart, try to explain this away by saying WP can burn flesh while leaving clothes intact. But true weapons experts, such as GlobalSecurity.org Director John Pike, say there’s no such black magic. “If it hits your clothes it will burn your clothes,” he told reporters. As daily news reports illustrate in brilliant red Technicolor, the greatest threat to Iraqi civilians are the terrorists. If we want to save civilians, our soldiers must be free to use the best legal equipment available to kill those terrorists and to continue liberating Iraq. Michael Fumento is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. and a science and health columnist for Scripps Howard News Service."

11/24/2005 10:15:25 AM

So you are both going to quote non-credible obiously biased new agencies back at eachother?

sounds....productive

11/24/2005 10:20:28 AM

Quote :

"White Phosphorus Charges Are Burning Lies"

What a joke of a column. The Charges are "all lies." Sure. The U.S. military has now ADMITTED it used WP on the enemy. They had lied and denied they did so before. So the Italian documentary has already forced the U.S. military to admit things it has done. And, those critizicing the war are just "defeat-niks" and "anti-war zealots"? They couldn't possibly have any LEGITIMATE REASONS to oppose the war. Oh, no. They "hate America" and "want America to be defeated." Nice childish argument.

US Intelligence said use of WP on the enemy WAS a "chemical weapon" in 1991. The Italians, Russians, and nearly everyone else is condemning the use of it. Aparantly, the only ones who think it is acceptable are blinded Bush supporters and those on the Bush payroll.

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 10:34 AM. Reason : `]

11/24/2005 10:32:53 AM

^ Nice dodge of the issue.

Quote :

"It’s allegedly outlawed by the Geneva Convention as a chemical weapon. Therefore its use puts us in the same category as Saddam Hussein – or so claims the hugely popular leftist blogsite Daily Kos. But according to the authoritative think tank GlobalSecurity.org, “White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory.” Is it a chemical? Sure! So is something else you may have heard of. It’s called “gunpowder.” And those chemicals used in high explosives? Yup, they're chemicals too. "

OMG outlaw gunpowder too! It's a chemical weapon!!111!!

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 10:45 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2005 10:35:21 AM

Oh, yeah. I'm so dodging the issue.

THE US ADMITTED THEY USED WHITE PHOSPOROUS ON THE ENEMY!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/16/white.phosphorous.ap/

Quote :

"U.S. admits using white phosphorus as weapon Friday, November 18, 2005 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorus as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Falluja last November. At the same time, they denied an Italian television news report that the spontaneously flammable material had been used against civilians. Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said that while white phosphorus is used most frequently to mark targets or obscure positions, it was used at times in Falluja as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants."

11/24/2005 10:44:30 AM

^^

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.""

11/24/2005 10:45:30 AM

You're right. We used it. So what? It's not illegal.

11/24/2005 10:45:46 AM

US INTELLIGENCE CLASSIFIED IT AS A CHEMICAL WEAPON IN 1991

11/24/2005 10:47:38 AM

It's use is not illegal.

11/24/2005 10:51:41 AM

Look, WP IS A CHEMICAL WEAPON. The US even admitted it was when Iraq was using it. But now that they're using it on people, they say it's not.

The Russians, Italians, and many others are saying that WP used on the enemy IS illegal. Are chemical weapons not banned? Can the US use chemical weapons "legally" under international law?

The Bush Administration and the US military are virtually the only ones saying that the use of WP in this way is "legal." And they would never lie would they? It's not like they lied and denied they used WP on the enemy in the first place. It's not like they lied to start the war in the first place. It's not like they're lying when they say they don't torture people.


[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 11:05 AM. Reason : `]

11/24/2005 11:03:40 AM

The US never signed any treaty banning the use of white phosphorus.

The United States is subject to the laws of the US Consitution and the treaties that it signs in food faith. The laws and treaties of other nations should have no bearing on US policy, unless of course, salisburyboy, you are advocating scrapping our rule of law for a more "enlightened" international version.

11/24/2005 11:12:17 AM

^Let's rationalize the burning of babies.

11/24/2005 11:32:29 AM