Chemical weapons in Iraq?
Discussion
just had a look at these... I've no idea about the regulations regarding such things, so what do the PH legal brains make of it?? Apparently the US has been using white phosphorous as a 'chemical weapon' in Iraq. IF it is true, does that not stink oh hypocrisy?
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1643680,00.html (Sorry to have the Grauniad link!)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article (independent articles)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article
www.frogstylebiscuit.com/index.php?articles_function=show_detail&name=articles&id=144&tag=tk
(Not sure how technical this site is)
there is a documentary on that website, that is NSFW, as it has images of a war type nature on it.
www.csmonitor.com/2005/1108/dailyUpdate.html (christian monitor... Again, not sure how impartial that would be)
Sorry if it has been covered, but I'm interested, and would like to know what the tefals think on here.... Is WP a chemical weapon if used on people? Whats the law on using it? Do people care about chemical weapons? All weapons are designed to kill or maim. Does it matter how it is done?
>> Edited by andy mac on Saturday 26th November 03:15
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1643680,00.html (Sorry to have the Grauniad link!)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article (independent articles)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article
www.frogstylebiscuit.com/index.php?articles_function=show_detail&name=articles&id=144&tag=tk
(Not sure how technical this site is)
there is a documentary on that website, that is NSFW, as it has images of a war type nature on it.
www.csmonitor.com/2005/1108/dailyUpdate.html (christian monitor... Again, not sure how impartial that would be)
Sorry if it has been covered, but I'm interested, and would like to know what the tefals think on here.... Is WP a chemical weapon if used on people? Whats the law on using it? Do people care about chemical weapons? All weapons are designed to kill or maim. Does it matter how it is done?
>> Edited by andy mac on Saturday 26th November 03:15
White phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, but it is seriously nasty shit to be around in terms of chemical toxicity, so I would argue that it is a chemical weapon in effect even if not in intention. There are plenty of incendiary compounds which are "basically OK if you dodge the flames" that could be used instead.
Of course it’s a chemical weapon, I’m not sure it has ever been used against people though. The reports of people saying things like “US. But Col Venable said it had been used to dislodge enemy fighters from entrenched positions in the city.”, does that mean it has been used as a weapon or is that a little spin to quote out of context that they used it to create a smoke screen and hide troops?
It’s all very vague and reeks of a media induced scandal IMO.
It’s all very vague and reeks of a media induced scandal IMO.
Radio 4 interviewed a US forces spokesman about this last week.
Of course the news story was dressed up in all the "white phosphorous is toxic and burns your skin off" etc etc.
The gist of what he said was that the (tank?) shells in question were indeed smoke generators. In the actual incident they were fired directly at fortified positions. The intention being to make the occupants shit themselves and leg it. (Reading between the lines, I reckon the idea was to make them think it WAS a chemical attack).
Most of the anti-US spin in the story was about how this description was slightly at odds with a generic statement off a US govt. website from about 4 years ago.
Of course the news story was dressed up in all the "white phosphorous is toxic and burns your skin off" etc etc.
The gist of what he said was that the (tank?) shells in question were indeed smoke generators. In the actual incident they were fired directly at fortified positions. The intention being to make the occupants shit themselves and leg it. (Reading between the lines, I reckon the idea was to make them think it WAS a chemical attack).
Most of the anti-US spin in the story was about how this description was slightly at odds with a generic statement off a US govt. website from about 4 years ago.
I'd love to hear the technical description of exactly what a chemical weapon is, from those who classify this weapon in that way.
Perhaps troops should be deployed with feather dusters.
Incendiaries, as this substance is classed, are no more chemical weapons, than say a Molatov cocktail.
The reality is that many fuel/air weapons are in fact banned. It doesn't stop "insurgents" from using them. The only difference between a fuel air/weapon and the molatov cocktail is that they are better manufactured, and possibly deployed from aircraft.
Perhaps we should fight a poor enemy with badly made weapons.
I'm trying to avoid comment on the issue of "rightness" or "wrongness" of these weapons, because I don't think it's as cut and dried, as people would like it to be.
I think this issue is a case of; "A small ammount of information is dangerous".
If one wants to have a go at Geo Dubya, fine. But do it when he's clearly wrong.
IMO the reality of a sound outcome in Iraq, is as much to do with our own organisation and clarity of thinking, as anything else. The trouble is that these issues are difficut to deal with because they are complicated. More so, in fact, than the definition of a chemical weapon.
The trouble is that those who don't like the war, mostly want an easy end that can be achieved with a minimum of consideration and loss.
It could be that there is so much passion to end the war peacefully, that this issue couldn't fail to hit the headlines. Personally I see a situation where the passion to end the war peacefully is laclustre. As much so as the government and their ability to see the same war finished efficiently and conclusively. It still could benefit all that survive it.
Yes, the sad fact is that it's become a war of attrition, and we're all to blame for that.
Edited to improve grammar!
>> Edited by dilbert on Saturday 26th November 16:59
>> Edited by dilbert on Saturday 26th November 17:00
Perhaps troops should be deployed with feather dusters.
Incendiaries, as this substance is classed, are no more chemical weapons, than say a Molatov cocktail.
The reality is that many fuel/air weapons are in fact banned. It doesn't stop "insurgents" from using them. The only difference between a fuel air/weapon and the molatov cocktail is that they are better manufactured, and possibly deployed from aircraft.
Perhaps we should fight a poor enemy with badly made weapons.
I'm trying to avoid comment on the issue of "rightness" or "wrongness" of these weapons, because I don't think it's as cut and dried, as people would like it to be.
I think this issue is a case of; "A small ammount of information is dangerous".
If one wants to have a go at Geo Dubya, fine. But do it when he's clearly wrong.
IMO the reality of a sound outcome in Iraq, is as much to do with our own organisation and clarity of thinking, as anything else. The trouble is that these issues are difficut to deal with because they are complicated. More so, in fact, than the definition of a chemical weapon.
The trouble is that those who don't like the war, mostly want an easy end that can be achieved with a minimum of consideration and loss.
It could be that there is so much passion to end the war peacefully, that this issue couldn't fail to hit the headlines. Personally I see a situation where the passion to end the war peacefully is laclustre. As much so as the government and their ability to see the same war finished efficiently and conclusively. It still could benefit all that survive it.
Yes, the sad fact is that it's become a war of attrition, and we're all to blame for that.
Edited to improve grammar!
>> Edited by dilbert on Saturday 26th November 16:59
>> Edited by dilbert on Saturday 26th November 17:00
srebbe64 said:Funny you should say that:
So what constitutes a chemical weapon? Political expediency, I reckon.
Imagine the US had discovered thousands of tonnes of phosphorous hidden in Iraq. In that circumstance it's my belief the Americans would have a different view!
Wikipedia said:
February 1991: In this incident, the Iraqi military itself was accused of using white phosphorous as a chemical weapon against both combatants and non-combatants. A declassified 1995 US Department of Defense document titled "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders," states that "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam (Hussein) may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk."
speedy_thrills said:
So what constitutes a chemical weapon? Political expediency, I reckon.
Imagine the US had discovered thousands of tonnes of phosphorous hidden in Iraq. In that circumstance it's my belief the Americans would have a different view!Wikipedia said:
February 1991: In this incident, the Iraqi military itself was accused of using white phosphorous as a chemical weapon against both combatants and non-combatants. A declassified 1995 US Department of Defense document titled "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders," states that "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam (Hussein) may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk."
Got the wiki link?
white phosphorous is known as willy peter has been used in war since WW1, its is simple the best way to clear a trench, it certainly is not a chemical weapon, it is very effective at what it does, it is nasty stuff but if you were a soldier told to clear a trench you would want wp grenades
G Man said:
white phosphorous is known as willy peter has been used in war since WW1, its is simple the best way to clear a trench, it certainly is not a chemical weapon, it is very effective at what it does, it is nasty stuff but if you were a soldier told to clear a trench you would want wp grenades
Don't confuse scientific fact with political expediency, the two, sad to say, are entirely unrelated.
If anyone has ever had a phosphorous fire then they will know how much smoke they make and how much the smoke stinks. It's also really bad for you. OFten when we try to weigh out phosphorous it just catches fire (suppose we should do it under water). I've never got any phosphorous on me but I don't see how it's worse than many other chemicals.
phosphorus was first made in the 1600s from horse urine. it was used in the manufacture of matches (meaning that an awful lot of people ended up with the terrible disease "phossy jaw"
and to begin with was used by people to entertain royalty etc. One princess apparently stepped on a phosphorous match and burnt to death because it set fire to her dress.
There is a really good book about phosphorus but I can't remember the name of it
and to begin with was used by people to entertain royalty etc. One princess apparently stepped on a phosphorous match and burnt to death because it set fire to her dress. There is a really good book about phosphorus but I can't remember the name of it
dilbert said:
I'd love to hear the technical description of exactly what a chemical weapon is, from those who classify this weapon in that way.
Perhaps troops should be deployed with feather dusters.
Incendiaries, as this substance is classed, are no more chemical weapons, than say a Molatov cocktail.
I don't know what the "formal" definition of a chemical weapon is, but I would define it as one which is effective through chemical effects, such as toxicity or hallucinogenic action, as opposed to one which is effective through physical effects, such as blast, heat or impact.
White phosphorus is classed as an incendiary, which makes it "conventional" as it takes effect through heat. But it is also toxic, as are the fumes of its burning; regardless of the intention or the formal classification, it takes effect through toxicity, both local and systemic. This makes it a chemical weapon IMO.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff