US used chemical weapons to fight Iraq?

[Razor]

If this is true, it is very hypocritcal. To fight a madman who had used chemical weapons on his people by dropping chemical weapons on his people :stare:.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10901.htm

I know what Phosphorus is and i know it is a nasty thing if it gets on your skin, especially if you don't know what to do if you become exposed to it and panic.

For people who don't know what it is, it's a type of incendiary fuel that burns. If you get it on your skin, you have to get a damp cloth and cover the wound up by tightly gripping the wound and trying to starve the phosphorous of oxygen, if you don't do it, it burns right down to your bone.

 

[CptStern]

which is contrary to what they've officially said after it came out they had used WMD in fallujah


"The United States categorically denies the use of chemical weapons at anytime in Iraq, which includes the ongoing Fallujah operation. Furthermore, the United States does not under any circumstance support or condone the development, production, acquisition, transfer or use of chemical weapons by any country. All chemical weapons currently possessed by the United States have been declared to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and are being destroyed in the United States in accordance with our obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention."


which is a load of baloney cuz in the same press release they say:

"Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003."

"First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003."

so in other words:

"it's not wmd cuz it's not naplam ...well it's sorta like naplam but we call it something different"



but they do admit to using phosphorus:


"Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes."



which again is a lot of bullshit because they're using SHELLS not gernades and even gernades are used as an anti-personnel device:


"The white phosphorus grenade, also known as "Willie Petes", is a horrifically effective device that is officially listed as a screening device for the grey, wispy, light smoke it produces. Most experienced military personnel know better, using them for anti-material and anti-personnel effects.

does 3D damage per round to flammable material (including most people) until smothered/submerged, or until the effected bodily areas and/or structures are gone."

source



I'm willing to offer a solution, complete withdrawl from iraq to be replaced with 150,000 ground troops from an international coalition not spearheaded by the US

 

[Bob_Marley]

I dont doubt that the Americans used that kind of stuff on Fallujah. Lets face it, they dont exactly have a squeeky clean record as far as the development and use of these kind of weapons now do they?

Just remember as far as America is concerned
"We can use it becase we represent all that is right and good in the world. But noone else can."

Unfortuneatly, white phosphorus is a dual purpose munition which means that the use of it can be explained as illumination. Like agent orange in Veitnam, because offically it was a defoliant, it just had the side effect of being an effective chemical weapon.

And anyway, noone is going to actually do anything about it are they. Well all just sit here saying "oh this is terrible" while all the people in power sit on their hands and wont do anything becase the US might decide that they need a "regime change".

 

[CptStern]

kinda hard to justify shells as being used for illunimation ..besides as I've posted the soldiers who use phosphorus gernades use it as a anti-personnel device

 

[SAJ]

I think the argument over chemical weapons is a bit of a red herring really. It would be hard to argue conclusively that such weapons were used(albeit on a technicality).
Consider the relevant conventions:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/553?OpenDocument
DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA

For the purposes of this Convention:

1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(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;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

2. "Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

Although styrine is an additive to the us army`s replacement for napalm(an additive that has the sole function of making the weapon deadlier against personnel ), more useful is the protocol on incendary weapons use.

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.
Article [Display Introduction] [Display Full text] [Display articles]
Article 2: Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

 

[SAJ]

Furthermore consider this quote:

According to Peter Kaiser from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, white phosphorus is not banned by the chemical weapons convention if it's used for military applications
whereby they don't intend to use the toxic properties of the chemical.
White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke to camouflage movement or to light up a battle-field for instance. Those reasons are a legitimate uses for the chemical.
He goes on to point out that if the toxic properties of white phosphorus are used specifically for the purpose of being a weapon, that would be against the chemical weapons convention. ' Any chemical that is used
against humans or against animals that causes harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical, ARE considered chemical weapons and as long as the purpose is to cause harm - that is prohibited behaviour.

(quoted out of laziness)

If I may offer an interpretation;the use of phosphorous would only become a chemical attack if the u.s army intended to use the effects of the munition against people. If the resulting deaths were unintentional , then it isnt a chemical attack.
Tricky , huh?

 

[CptStern]

kinda goes with my post on how the US justified it's use in fallujah

 

[Eg.]

So, if I missuse my flaregun, that means the US army has used chemical weapons?

 

[CptStern]

So, if I missuse my flaregun, that means the US army has used chemical weapons?

hardly the same scenario:

"Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003."

"First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003."

 

[The Mullinator]

I find it somewhat difficult to imagine why they would risk using them. The risk of it being discovered and for the world to find out is simply not worth risking using something that really wouldn't even give much of an advantage in the situation it has been claimed to be used in.

 

[CptStern]

I dont know, there's tons of atrocities that never made it into mainstream press ..or at least got scant notice ...like this article on how in one particular battle US forces bulldozed iraqi troops, burying some alive

"One infamous incident during the war highlighted the question of large-scale Iraqi combat deaths. This was the `bulldozer assault' in which two brigades from the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized)--The Big Red One--used plows mounted on tanks and combat earthmovers to bury Iraqi soldiers defending the fortified "Saddam Line."

While approximately 2,000 of the troops surrendered, escaping burial, one newspaper story reported that the U.S. commanders estimated thousands of Iraqi soldiers had been buried alive during the two-day assault February 24-25, 1991."



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html



I firmly believe we dont know half of what actually goes on

 

[Bait]

I find it somewhat difficult to imagine why they would risk using them. The risk of it being discovered and for the world to find out is simply not worth risking using something that really wouldn't even give much of an advantage in the situation it has been claimed to be used in.

The risk of perpetuating the lie that Iraq could deploy WMD's within an hour was a pretty big risk too. Along with a countless score of other lies which are now labelled as "false information" which completely washes the hands of all those involved.

Granted, it is a slightly different spin than what you are mentioning, but the point still stands. Even if the general populus knew that the US were using chemical weapons, the reprocussions wouldn't be THAT great.

.......But nowadays we are seeing a changing opinion towards the war, so maybe it would be hard to really say what public opinion towards those weapons would be.

 

[Bob_Marley]

kinda hard to justify shells as being used for illunimation ..besides as I've posted the soldiers who use phosphorus gernades use it as a anti-personnel device

Thats why I said unfortuneatly. The Americans could say that these white phosphorus shells were being used for illumination and just happened to have the side effect of being an anti-personell weapon. I dont believe it, but thats how they would probubly explain it if the matter were ever brought before an international court (which it wont, remember, the USA can do no evil) and that cannot be eaily disproved.

Just remember, 'Nam may seem like a long time ago but the ideas that the US forces used there are still prevelant in the US military today (ie, bulldozing enemy positions, using incedury weapons, cloud seeding [well, they havent done that, yet (as far as we know)....], etc). This is just one more example of it.

They've done it before, and there is no doubt in my mind that they will do it again. They use weapons such as these under the justification of somthing legitimate (illumination, defoliant, etc) and they just happen to end up harming the enemy and/or civillains.

The argument comes down to this: is it a chemical weapon, if so its use is entirely illegal (as you cannot garuntee that it wont harm/kill people) or is it an incendury weapon that has been used against civillians (because while there is nothing illegal in using incendury weapons against enemy forces it is illegal to use it against civillans [which is odd because they dont use flame throwers because they are inhumane but still use napalm])

 

[Top Secret]

I honestly don't see the problem with bulldozing enemy soldiers inside buildings. Sounds pretty effective to me. Not to meantion fun.

 

[spookymooky]

I honestly don't see the problem with bulldozing enemy soldiers inside buildings. Sounds pretty effective to me. Not to meantion fun.

Clearly it's much more humane to shoot/bomb them.

 

[Eg.]

And when did naplam become WMD?

 

[southernman17]

I'd like to request a moderator take off the link to the video of the victims of the attack. Be it children or terrorist being shown I think it is inappropriate for anyone under 18 to view those images and we do have users under 18-year-olds on this forum.

 

[Javert]

which is a load of baloney cuz in the same press release they say:

"Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003."

"First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003."

so in other words:

"it's not wmd cuz it's not naplam ...well it's sorta like naplam but we call it something different"

Careful.
You have to ask whether it's a chemical weapon or not just because the "effects" (I'm assuming the "boom" part) are similar. In that case, TNT or any incendiary explosive that feeds off the oxygen in the air would be a "chemical weapon/WMD".

However you're probably right on everything else.

And when did naplam become WMD?

It isn't, but it's still nasty stuff that we said we wouldn't use.

 

[Reaktor4]

Whatever they did i bet theyll get away wiht it.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Also, the US is not a signatory to the incendury weapons treaty so, leagly speaking they can use such weapons on military targets in civillan areas all they want. Also, they are under no obligation not to use napalm/flame throwers and only dont use them to try and keep public opinion on their side.

 

[Direwolf]

I'm thinking something really went to hell for someone to order something like that. So I'm curious as to what the tactical situation is. Heck, I might have agreed if the situation was bad enough.

 

[SAJ]

Oops, I may have to retract what I said previously about white phosphorous. It looks as though it may well fit the category of chemical weapon after all:

Phosphorus exists in three allotropic forms: white, black, and red.

White phosphorus: Colorless or yellowish, transparent, crystalline solid; darkens on exposure to light; m. 44.1° (vapor press. 0.181 mm.); b. 280° d. 1.83; volatile; sublimes in vacuo. at ordinary temperature when exposed to light. When exposed to air in the dark, emits a greenish light and gives off white fumes. Almost insoluble in water (one part in 300,000 parts of water); very slightly soluble in abs. alcohol (1 g./ 400 ml.); slightly sol. in abs. ether (1 g./ 102 ml.); soluble in chloroform (1 g./ 40 ml.); soluble in benzene (1 g./ 35 ml.); very soluble in carbon disulfide (1 g./ O.8 ml.). Solubility in oils: one gram phosphorus dissolves in 80 ml. olive oil, 60 ml. oil of turpentine, about 100 ml. almond oil.

Ignites at about 30° in moist air; the ignition temperature is higher when the air is dry.

Caution: Handle with forceps. Keep under water.

The fumes and the element itself are poisonous. Combines directly with the halogens to form tri- or pentahahdes; combines with sulfur to form sulfides. Reacts with several metals to form phosphides. Yields orthophosphoric acid when treated with nitric acid. Reacts with alkali hydroxides with formation of phosphine and sodium hypophosphite.

Incompat. Sulfur, iodine, oil of turpentine, potassium chlorate.

Use: Mannf. rat poisons; for smoke screens, gas analysis.

And this:

The EPA has listed white phosphorus as a Hazardous Air Pollutant. The EPA requires that spills or accidental releases into the environment of 1 pound or more of white phosphorus be reported to the EPA.

link: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts103.html
Consider that WP(white phosphorous) was used not only in an urban area,but also as a weapon:

"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.
"Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.

The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.

They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of personal insults and name-calling.

(from VIOLENCE SUBSIDES FOR MARINES IN FALLUJAH by DARRIN MORTENSON, North County Times, Saturday, April 10, 2004)

 

[SAJ]

And also :

Pathophysiology: White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small subsegment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing.

Few studies have investigated the degree of tissue destruction associated with white phosphorus injuries. In the experimental animal model, most tissue destruction appears to be secondary to the heat generated by oxidation.

Systemic toxicity has been described extensively in the animal model. Pathologic changes have been documented in the liver and kidney. These changes result in the development of progressive anuria, decreased creatinine clearance, and increased blood phosphorus levels. Depression of serum calcium with an elevation in the serum phosphorus level (reversed calcium-phosphorus ratio) with electrocardiographic changes including prolongation of the QT segment, ST segment depression, T wave changes, and bradycardia also have been observed. Oral ingestion of white phosphorus in humans has been demonstrated to result in pathologic changes to the liver and kidneys. The accepted lethal dose is 1 mg/kg, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death. Individuals with a history of oral ingestion have been noted to pass phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome").

http://emedicine.com/emerg/topic918.htm

 

[CptStern]

"been noted to pass phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome"). "



talk about flaming butthole

 

[Polaris]

If this is true, it is very hypocritcal. To fight a madman who had used chemical weapons on his people by dropping chemical weapons on his people :stare:.

Its really different story.
Sadam used (on civilians) real chemical weapons like yperite, sarine, phosgene. US Army used (if its true) white phosphorus and its not chemical weapon!

 

[gick]

Its really different story.
Sadam used (on civilians) real chemical weapons like yperite, sarine, phosgene. US Army used (if its true) white phosphorus and its not chemical weapon!

It is a weapon.

Phosphorus is a chemical.

Therefore - chemical weapon

 

[Polaris]

It is a weapon.

Phosphorus is a chemical.

Therefore - chemical weapon

Nuke bomb is weapon.

Uranium/plutonium is chemical.

Nuke bomb is chemical weapon.

 

[southernman17]

Any weapon could be considered a chemical weapon, even a gun. The powder in gun cartridges is a chemical, to fire it, it requires a chemical reaction (burning powder) therefore it is a chemical weapon.

 

[gick]

Nuke bomb is weapon.

Uranium/plutonium is chemical.

Nuke bomb is chemical weapon.

What's your point? That doesnt stop phosphorus being a chemical.

 

[gick]

Any weapon could be considered a chemical weapon, even a gun. The powder in gun cartridges is a chemical, to fire it, it requires a chemical reaction (burning powder) therefore it is a chemical weapon.

True, but with a gun it isnt the chemical that does the actual harm, its the bullet.

 

[Polaris]

True, but with a gun it isnt the chemical that does the actual harm, its the bullet.

Bullet is lead - lead is chemical element

 

[gick]

Bullet is lead - lead is chemical element

Aaaaargh! The bitter taste of defeat......