Evidence Of US Use Of Chemical Weapons On Iraqi Civilians...

I simply think we overboard when we used WP because of it's harmful effects on people and it is hard to keep it limited to targets when there are civilians around at the same time. In my opinion it was a mistake in judgement to use it when we did.

How silly is an argument to determine the most humane way to kill each other during war.

revel wrote:

I simply think we overboard when we used WP because of it's harmful effects on people and it is hard to keep it limited to targets when there are civilians around at the same time. In my opinion it was a mistake in judgement to use it when we did.

The thing that caused civilian deaths was the fact that we bombarded the place with heavy artillery (120mm mortars and 155mm howitzers).

I don't see how a white phosphorus shell is deadlier (or harder to limit to targets) than a similar shell loaded with high explosive.

oralloy wrote:

revel wrote:

First it was denied we used it, then it is only for illumination purposes so it wasn't a chemical weapon, now we have come down, it is not illegal because we didn't sign any treaty and we didn't purposely target civilians anyway-if they got hurt, well, tough luck.

Where did we deny using it?

The first response I heard was when they were claiming that it was only used for illumination.

My bad, we denied using it except as illumation purposes, but that turned out to be a lie.