oralloy wrote:We only limit weapons via international law.
We have never chosen to limit napalm under international law.
But when we used napalm in Iraq, we constrained ourselves to the limitations others have chosen to place on napalm, even though it was not necessary for us to do so.
That's not quite true. Others have chosen not to use napalm at all. That is, every other country except for the United States:
In Geneva, Protocol III (Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is adopted on October 10, 1980, making it illegal to use incendiary weapons on civilian populations and restricting the use of these weapons against military targets that are located within a concentration of civilians. Such weapons are considered "to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects." 51 countries initially sign the document and on December 2, 1983, its provisions are entered into force. By the end of 2004, 104 countries sign and 97 ratify the protocol. The US is not a party to this protocol and continues to use incendiary weapons in all its major conflicts. It is the only country to do so.
georgeob1 wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:orally, The reason the use of napalm in Iraq is important is because US signed an agreement not to use them any more.
This is not true.
Correct: the USA didn't sign the UN convention of 1980.
Apparently there is some confusion. I will try to assist
One of the stated reasons we went to war in Iraq, was to prevent Saddam from using chemical weapons. That doesn't mean, the US can't use chemical weapons, it just means we don't want the Iraqis using them.
I know someone may wish to split some hairs over the definiton of 'chemical weapons', but I would suggest that if you are on the ground when napalm is flying in your direction, you would probably view it as being akin to a chemical weapon, and it would certainly be as terrifying.
Dare I say, a weapon of terror. It's getting difficult to tell the difference these days. Is this a war on terror, or a war of terror? Who are the terrorists?
Walter Hinteler wrote:georgeob1 wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:orally, The reason the use of napalm in Iraq is important is because US signed an agreement not to use them any more.
This is not true.
Correct: the USA didn't sign the UN convention of 1980.
Note that the 1980 convention doesn't prohibit the use of napalm.
It just says you can't use it in aircraft-delivered weapons within a population center, and you can only use non-aircraft-delivered napalm in a population center if it is against a military objective that is well-separated from any civilians.
old europe wrote:oralloy wrote:We only limit weapons via international law.
We have never chosen to limit napalm under international law.
But when we used napalm in Iraq, we constrained ourselves to the limitations others have chosen to place on napalm, even though it was not necessary for us to do so.
That's not quite true. Others have chosen not to use napalm at all. That is, every other country except for the United States:
They are free to not use it. But that choice isn't really a limitation. They can reverse their decision if they wish.
Quote:In Geneva, Protocol III (Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is adopted on October 10, 1980, making it illegal to use incendiary weapons on civilian populations and restricting the use of these weapons against military targets that are located within a concentration of civilians. Such weapons are considered "to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects." 51 countries initially sign the document and on December 2, 1983, its provisions are entered into force. By the end of 2004, 104 countries sign and 97 ratify the protocol. The US is not a party to this protocol and continues to use incendiary weapons in all its major conflicts. It is the only country to do so.
That is the limitation I mentioned that other people have placed on napalm, which we followed in Iraq even though we were not required to do so.
oralloy wrote:old europe wrote:oralloy wrote:We only limit weapons via international law.
We have never chosen to limit napalm under international law.
But when we used napalm in Iraq, we constrained ourselves to the limitations others have chosen to place on napalm, even though it was not necessary for us to do so.
That's not quite true. Others have chosen not to use napalm at all. That is, every other country except for the United States:
They are free to not use it. But that choice isn't really a limitation. They can reverse their decision if they wish.
They can reverse their decision by breaking the treaty they have signed. Of course the United States don't have the need of breaking treaties. As has been mentioned 195 times on this thread, the US never signed one.
oralloy wrote:Quote:In Geneva, Protocol III (Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is adopted on October 10, 1980, making it illegal to use incendiary weapons on civilian populations and restricting the use of these weapons against military targets that are located within a concentration of civilians. Such weapons are considered "to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects." 51 countries initially sign the document and on December 2, 1983, its provisions are entered into force. By the end of 2004, 104 countries sign and 97 ratify the protocol. The US is not a party to this protocol and continues to use incendiary weapons in all its major conflicts. It is the only country to do so.
That is the limitation I mentioned that other people have placed on napalm, which we followed in Iraq even though we were not required to do so.
Obviously not followed in Iraq, unless you don't want to call a Mark-77 firebomb napalm.
As for the use of naplam, isn't the important issue for the US the killing of innocent people? We're talking between our teeth - while the US always claims we make every effort to minimize the killing of innocent civilians.
oralloy
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
I'm not interested in the definition of 'chemical weapon' or 'terrorism', as stated in a book or document. I'm more interested in the reality for the victims.
For example, if you are an Iraqi driving down a road, and a hypothetical US plane is flying overhead loaded with napalm and chemical weapons, and the plane closes in for the attack, I would suggest that you would not sigh with relief, simply because the plane drops napalm rather than a bomb containing chemicals. Indeed, I would rather take my chances with the chemicals. Its hard to see the difference between inhaling gas / absorbing chemicals or burning to death after a napalm strike. Of course, you might be lucky and survive the naplam strike, with burns all over your disfigured body, as well as the internal injuries that it can cause.
I also find it interesting how people play around with the meaning of terror or terrorism. Again, I would suggest that the best way to decide what is an act of 'terrorism', is to ask the victims, or potential victims. If they feel terrified or terrorised, then from their perspective, it is 'terrorism'. Its not just 'terrorist groups' that can endulge in terrorism of a target group. As georgeob1 put it, victory comes about when the enemy gives up hope.
Governments need to step carefully. Its hard to win hearts and minds of a populace, if the average civilian has difficulty seeing the difference between the 'terrorists' and the foreign military power that is using terror tactics such as dropping naplam, no matter what the justification.
Considering the military's propensity for dropping bombs on civilian targets by accident, do you think that there is a chance of a 'mistake' being made when dropping naplam? How will Iraqis view that, if many of the victims are children, for example? Think of the images on TV. Not exactly great PR. How long before it happens?
oralloy
Again, I will try to clarify for you.
It was a 'hypothetical' plane and you can choose which 'hypothetical' cause of death you would prefer. Chemical weapons or naplam? Which is the worst or most horrific way to die? Personally I would find it hard to choose between them.
Its strange (but not surprising) how the US military and government seem to find the use of one acceptable (the stuff they use), but yet the other is unacceptable (the stuff the enemy uses). It is a twisted logic, but a lot of people seem sufficiently gullibile or out of touch with the reality of violence, to accept what they are being told.
A "definition of terrorism" will be dependant on who you ask. Those engaging in terrorism, including governments, will obviously not include any type of activity in THEIR definition of terrorism, that they actually engage in. Many governments around the world are aware of the possibility that any definition they agree to, (your "established definition") will have to be flexible enough to allow them wriggle room sometime in the future, for whenever they engage in terrrorist activity.
You say that dropping naplam is not terrorism. Actually, anything can be used in an act of terrorism. A bullet, naplam or a hijacked plane crashed into a building, for example. Dropping naplam is therefore capable of being defined as an act of terrorism. It simply depends on the circumstances and the motivation of those responsible for the air strike.
As stated previously, the government and / or military, will obviously put a positive spin on every action they engage in, and justify the use of any weapon no matter how horrific, up to and including an atomic bomb in WW2. People like yourself will then believe whatever version of reality you feel comfortable with.
You said, "Now, if you want to talk white phosphorus, we did shell Fallujah with that. We could have got (this is the best bit) SOME CIVILIANS in that case." Nicely understated view of urban conflict. I think that is what they call a state of 'denial'.
The harsh reality is that the US military attack targets, knowing that civilians will be injured and / or killed. It isn't a matter of 'could have' or 'some'. Please recall the trigger happy tactics of soldiers travelling trough cities, shooting at vehicles that get too close. Life is cheap, especially when it is an Iraqi. It is even easier to extinguish a life when the victim is at a distance and out of sight. Anyway, when the bodies are blown to pieces by an exploding shell, who the hell is counting how many Iraqis died?
Do you know the casualty figures for Iraqis? Does the government? They certainly didn't seem to care too much in the past.
It is not a War on Terror, it is a War OF Terror. If terror is a tactic of the US government / military, that's fine, I just wish they wouldn't insult the intelligence of people with a sufficient mental capacity to distinguish between reality and propaganda. I just wish they would be honest about it. I might actually respect them if they stopped bullsh*tting about what they are doing, although I understand why they feel unable to state the facts. The voters have been brainwashed for so long, they couldn't handle the truth about what their 'boys' are doing overseas. They need to believe that they are the good guys and that its only the enemy who engage in terror tactics.
