[Kevin]

But the small-scale tactical nitpicking that goes on by armchair Geneva convention experts is still pretty laughable. Most of them never heard of white phosphorous (there are other kinds of phosphorous, by the way, like red phosphorous) prior to seeing that fairly insipid little 'documentary', and I don't really hold their opinions in high regard.

Your post was very interesting until this part.
No one ever claimed to be an expert. We are just people that are worried about what your country is doing to other people in a country in which they have no buissiness in the first place, as you have said yourself.
It's a petty really, that you think like that. Shows more about yourself then it does about others.

 

[Changleen]

No one's ever criticized Saddam's use of WP, have they?? Sulphuric acid and blister/nerve gas, yes.

Phosphoric acid has essentially the same effect so why is it OK?

where?

In my post: "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam (Hussein) may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons"

So the US should have never started this in the first place. There were and are many more useful and legitimate fights we could have started prior to this one. I don't think the war has served the US or the Iraqis well. It may turn out with a mediocre outcome, which will be touted as incredibly positive, but the Saddam situation (as there was one, which wasn't much IMHO) could have been handled with some patience as the minor issue it was rather than turned into the giant cluster**** that it is.

Agreed.

But the small-scale tactical nitpicking that goes on by armchair Geneva convention experts is still pretty laughable. Most of them never heard of white phosphorous (there are other kinds of phosphorous, by the way, like red phosphorous) prior to seeing that fairly insipid little 'documentary', and I don't really hold their opinions in high regard.

Look, WP when used as it was causes massive acidic burns to skin and mucous membranes, mainly lungs and eyes. I don't care if so-and-so governing body doesn't strictly define it as a chemical weapon or whatever. The fact is people died of phosphoric acid burns over 90+% of their bodies. In what way is that different to 'genuine' chemical weapons? Arguing the effect is somehow OK because a piece of paper says it's technically not a chemical weapon is BS IMO. You've seen the photos and footage. Women and children in their hundreds were killed by this action. They died in one of the most horrific ways you can possibly imagine. I'm sure the US did try and warn Fallujians to get out, but THEY are the invading force, THEY choose to be there. THEY put these people in harms way. I don't need the Geneva convention to tell me this was really really wrong. And more than that, do you really think the rest of the Arab world is going to look at this and say, "Oh, it's OK, don't hate the Americans, the weapons they used were technically not illegal"?

 

[MikeD]

A single internal Dept of Defense report from over 10 years ago doesn't codify US policy vis-a-vis chemical weapons and WP. WP is most definitely classified as a conventional munition by the US and the rest of the military world.

Even the Wikipedia entry you've been quoting points out that it's not the smoke that's killing people (the 'chemical effects'), unless they're suffocated by it in an enclosed space. It's the burning bits of phosphorous...and when you're trying to kill someone, getting burns over 90% of his body is a good way to do it quickly. Hey, if he doesn't want to burn, he can stand up and take an HE round instead.

You're right that there's a fine and often absurd line being drawn with any 'law of war,' especially ones as nearly kafka-esque as those trying to limit the suffering you can cause to an individual while intentionally trying to kill him. But the point with WP is that it's not made to kill people with poison gas; it's made to burn them up and produce lots of smoke. It's the intent of the weapon that matters with this law stuff, as much as any of this can be considered 'legal' arguments anyhow, since there's really no such thing as international law.

Law exists only insofar as the lawmaker has power to enforce the law. Sad but true. Law's not a normative concept like right or wrong; it's a much more tangible thing that's only there when it's physically manifest in the form of real consequences.

MD

 

[Changleen]

The consequences in this case will be several generations of distrust of the US in the eyes of much of the world.

 

[MikeD]

Phosphoric acid has essentially the same effect so why is it OK?

The issue with his use of acid was mainly that it was used against civilians as a form of political reprisal...but it's getting absurd to argue all this when the fact was that the US was supporting Saddam through lots of his atrocities.

We as a nation have an astonishing ability to get on a moral high horse when just last week we were in the mud beneath that horse doing things we'd rather not see made public.

Then again, so does every nation and government...it's just that most of the rest of the world doesn't have the power to make its deficiencies, lapses, inconsistencies, and screw-ups so large-scale

MD

 

[MikeD]

The consequences in this case will be several generations of distrust of the US in the eyes of much of the world.

But this proves my point, somewhat...you're right about this. But the cause of the mistrust is the war as a whole, not the use of WP, which is just another bandwagon issue to hop on along with.

No one's ever really bitched about the US using WP anywhere else, as it has for generations. But because this war is unpopular, nothing the US does in theatre will be right in the eyes of those who despise it.

This is why 1) the current administration is pretty unapologetic, because they're damned if they do and damned if they don't and 2) you need to predict this stuff and not get into fights that are going to be unable to be won cleanly, unless you have no other choice.

I do hope my arguments about WP haven't made me seem like I'm blaming the media for the situation in Iraq. When I was in the military, I viewed public opinion and media reaction as a dimension of the battlefield, not something separate and somehow false and/or evil.

Complaining about the media is like complaining that it's not fair because the enemy has better equipment or training or morale or something. It's a place where the US needs to win a fight, and the US has been pretty miserable about winning the fight for the media and public opinion. The media fight sure isn't easy, and it's not a place where the US has a monopoly on power. The administration's hard-line attitudes impressed some people for all of 3 weeks; then their dogma and inflexibility and vitriol started to implode.

MD

 

[Jabuttri]

Man I am a terrible speller and have even worse grammar but Irak i sure hope you were trying for that.