The first thing somebody has to do in this is prove that the use of WP was the use of a chemical weapon, and an illegal chemical weapon.

Jesus, this is too fucking funny. Apparently the first thing anyone has to do is to prove to you that white phosphorous is a chemical. I’m not sure who we can do that since it’s so fucking obvious. But I started this conversation just trying to convince you that an investigation was warranted. Over the course of that discussion you went into lunacy overdrive to argue that white phosphorous is not a chemical.

And what verdict have I reached? It’s clear from the evidence that I’ve seen that the Pentagon used white phosphorous as a weapon — they said as much — and that this may be a violation of the Convention we signed on to. Right now all you have is the Pentagon saying we did use WP as a weapon (after they denied it directly) and that no it isn’t illegal. Okay. How often do let suspects in a case determine the legality of their own actions? The Pentagon has been accussed and confessed to using WP as a weapon. Can we please have an impartial investigation into the matter now? Can we please get to the bottom of the how and why it was used? We do you automatically assume that in investigation is a bad thing? Why do you automatically jump to the conclusion that just calling for an investigation is evidence of pre-judgement or malicious intent?

Who knows JD maybe the Pentagon will come to your for your brilliant forensic knowledge. Maybe they’ll make use of your dazzling white phosphorous is not a chemical, it’s only a chemical agent defense.

And conservatives wonder why their science standards get laughed at.

Classic response JD. Classic. Have I ever served. Nice. People were warned to evacuate. Nice. Then we get a sample of your armchair forensics. Hilarious. Let me ask you something: Are you over the age of 12?

As Dr. Squid points out none of what you have to say means shit anymore since you arre apparently standing by this statement: “They did not even admit to using a chemical as a weapon. They admitted to using WP as a weapon …”

White phosphorous is a chemical. They admitted to using it as a weapon. You start this conversation by saying that “it does not seem that the left enters into this in good faith” then you turn around and argue that white phosphorous is not a chemical. Oh no, it’s just a mystery substance that burns shit through a chemical reaction but it isn’t a chemical.

And as for this: “If it is some huge toxic cloud, how do you explain how our service men and women were not injured or killed by this poisonous smog?”

Okay brain boy, if it’s so precise why did you say that it wasn’t? (“It is not like a bullet that you can aim at a target with precision”) First, I’d say it was because they aimed it away from themselves. I bet their trained to do that.
Second, it sounds like they’re probably damn lucky that the wind didn’t change on them — always a problem with the application of chemicals in warfare. Finally, how do you know that some of them weren’t injured? The Pentagon wasn’t exactly forthicoming with the information that they were even using it as a weapon. Why would they tell us if a soldier was injured or killed by it?

No it’s just a huge fucking cloud that you have no control over fired above a a city where hundreds of civilians were trapped, unable to evacuate.

frameone – have you ever served? ever seen WP used? If it is some huge toxic cloud, how do you explain how our service men and women were not injured or killed by this poisonous smog? Simple, it is not as you say.

Unable to evacuate? Trapped? They were warned for days on end that they had to be out by a time certain. If they were not, that was their choice and their determination.

By the way … I took a look at those pictures of the burned baby the left likes to trot out showing how we used WP to burn babies. Interesting that the pictures show decomposed skin, and remarkably, the WP was able to “melt” the skin while at the same time, causing no discernable damage to the clothing. Neat trick.

Your position clearly shows that you do not want to investigate this to see if there were war crimes committed. You are laying out your case for why war crimes were committed. You have already reached your verdict. Why not just admit that?

“White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air. According to globalsecurity.org: “The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen… If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone.” As it oxidises, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke “releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces… Contact… can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage.”

They weren’t just using white phosphorous to start fucking fires, JD. They were firing clouds of it into buildings where they knew the insurgents were to scare the living shit out of anyone who watched the guy next to them melt:

“We have learned that some of the information we were provided … is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, ie obscuring troop movements and, according to… Field Artillery magazine, ‘as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes…’ The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.”

The shells produce a chemical smoke that starts to burn on contact with moisture. The chemicals in a grenade or a bullet don’t do the damage. They trigger the explosion that send metal flying through the air at high velocity. It’s the metal that kills people. In this case it’s the other way around: a shell is used to deliver a chemical, a chemical cloud that pretty much sets the fucking air on fire as it burns. It’s the chemical that does the damage, not the shell that fired it.

According to the treaty we’ve signed on to it is illegal to use the toxic properties of any chemcial “as a method of warfare.” If firing clouds of incendiary smoke into a building where insurgents are located for purposes of “psychological” warfare doesn’t sound like a violation of that little clause to you, then I don’t know what to say.

Is there anything, anything beyond justification in your mind?

I mean seriously. This is some of the worst hair splitting bullshit I’ve ever read. They admitted to using white phosphorous as a weapon, and white phosphorous is not a chemical? That’s fucking brilliant. Not only is it not a chemical, it didn’t do any damage in and of itself. The Army just shot it into the air and then a natural chemical reaction take over. The army can’t be responsible for that now can it? Of course not. I can see the explanation’s now:

“White phosphorous didn’t burn through your skin, sir, the heat produced by its reaction with moisture did. So you can’t really blame the white phosphorous. I mean if you blamed the white phosphorous you may as well blame the mositure, as well. And as we all know, moisture is water and water isn’t a chemical weapon is it? Of course not. You’re just emphasizing the wrong side of the chemical reaction. In reality, the US army was using water on you. The media is blowing this all out of proportion by saying the Army was using white phosphorous as a weapon. It was really using water to produce to a chemical reaction it had no control over. Why it’s all natural. See it’s so simply once you have the facts.”

They did not go around firing WP at people. It is not like a bullet that you can aim at a target with precision. If some people got burnt by the WP, that is unfortunate, but one might consider the fact that when hanging out in a declared war zone, one might encounter things like WP, hand grenades, bullets, etc …

I am engaging in an honest debate. It is you who is attempting to distort the definition of a chemical weapon to portray the US and the US soldiers as actors outside of the law.

“Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday that while white phosphorous is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.”

So the Pentagon used a chemical as a weapon but it didn’t use a chemical weapon. Sure that makes sense. That sounds like we’re being completely honest with ourselves. That sounds like the perfect kind of example we want to set for the world.

Venable goes on to say that white phosphorous is “not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory.” But that’s not entirely true. The US is a signatory to Chemical Weapons Convention which does not ban the use of white phosphorous as “a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy.” But “like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for “Military purposes… not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare”.’

So just because it isn’t banned for illumination does not mean that it is okay for use as a weapons. The Pentagon admitted that it used it as a weapon. So once again I have to ask you, this is okay with you? This is what America now represents, splitting hairs and playing semantic games so that we can use chemicals as weapons? Who isn’t engaging in an honest debate now?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1642832,00.html

The Pentagon has already admitted that white phosphorous was used an offensive weapon in Fallujah against insurgents. That’s enough to warrant some kind of investigation right there, or are we, as a nation, cool with using chemical agents in warfare now? Whether or not civilians were involved is something that needs to be looked into. I do not believe US troops would ever deliberately target civilians for attack but that doesn’t mean the decision to use chemical agents in a civilian area – like a major urban city — should not be investigated. And again, you are using speech that you consider extreme as an excuse to stifle discussion of a serious matter. Afterall we got ourselves into Iraq based on information given to us by a guy that the Germans codenamed Curveball and knew to be emotionally and mentally unstable. Some nutjob (and I’mnot saying Jade is a nutjob BTW) said Husein has chemical weapons so we invaded his country. The Pentagon says that it used chemical agents against insurgents and you want to ignore it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111600374.html

I will however accuse JD of engaging in just the kind of tactic that this whole “If you say this you are extreme” debate represents: It’s an attempt to stifle legitimate questions. Bush knew about 9-11? Nuts. We should investigate evidence that US troops used chemical agents as an offensive weapon? Perfectly legitimate.

Do you really believe that US servicemen and women are armed with known chemical weapons, and indiscriminately use them on civilians?

Other the hand, insisting that we are winning without ever telling anyone what winning means is a little nutty isn’t it?

Not a meme; it’s fact. When WP is used as something other than an illumination or smoke agent–it’s a chemical weapon.

As a matter of fact, this illegitimate administration declared Saddam Hussein a war criminal for using WP as a weapon against the Kurds.