U.S. Lies About Use of Chemical Weapons

For eight pages, we've been arguing about semantics here. For eight pages, Federal has been parrotting the same tired old argument again and again. So what if it freaking isn't classified as a chemical weapon by treaties, which are effectively laws?

According to an old English law, putting a stamp of the Queen on an envelope upside-down is an act of high treason. According to South-East Water Ltd. water is NOT a renewable resource. According to confectionary companies, miniature chocolate bars are "fun size" and according to China, Falun Gong, isn't a religious group but a crack pot "evil cult".

According to the US Military, civilians killed in action aren't unfortunate tragedies but collateral damage.

Put the spin on the other one, will you?

Yes, we've acknowledged the fact that according to some treaty, white phosphorous was not classed as a chemical weapon because nations didn't want to part with their precious phosphorous.

The hogwash is that white phosphorous, despite being not classed a chemical weapon is clearly a chemical weapon if used against people in the context of the Fallujah claims. In that case, it is a weapon used to harm people and it acts through chemical reactions.

The argument that should be being [CENSORED] debated about is the US reluctance to sign up to a part of the treaty that the majority of the world has signed up to, limiting the use of white phosphorous and whether WP should be reclassified.

But everyone seems to be dodging the real issue here.

Maybe we should dump some WP on you guys and see whether you'd still want to call it a conventional weapon then.

Of course, and it would be nice if their responses were polite, as well! 59% of Americans who voted for Bush IS a large amount - or heck of an amount as you say. How can that many people be so - dense?

Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing. (Twain).

englishmajor wrote:

Of course, and it would be nice if their responses were polite, as well! 59% of Americans who voted for Bush IS a large amount - or heck of an amount as you say. How can that many people be so - dense?

Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing. (Twain).

To be fair, Kerry wasn't exactly an ideal candidate, which was a mighty shame. The entire 2004 election was summed up quite accurately by this South Park quote:

"All elections... are between a douche and a turd sandwich."

White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy.

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".

But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people.

A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".

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 oxidizes, 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."

Given that they care so much, why has none of these hawks spoken out against the use of unconventional weapons by coalition forces?

White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy.

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".

But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people.

Causing extreme, unnecessary pain to people is what this is about. That your government lied about it is the MAIN POINT. You can split hairs all you want, but America is despicable and makes Saddam look like Santa Claus. America has become worse, with it's torture and murder, as what they overthrew. What goes around, comes around, and America's turn is coming. Shame on you.

It acts chemically with your body. It's just powder. That's not the same as napalm, which kills through burning. It's a chemical powder that chemically reacts with your body.

If white phosphorus, which was used "to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds", is not a chemical weapon, what is it then?

a) nuclear
b) biological
c) conventional


???

This entire debate is about semantics really. WP should be classed as a chemical weapon, because although it is incendiary it burns people through a chemical reaction.

Frankly, all this call about WP being a chemical weapon is absolutely understandable.

It is a chemical. It kills and wounds through chemical actions and it's a weapon. Why on Earth it was never classed a Chemical Weapon is beyond me.

Perhaps nations liked the idea of retaining chemical weapons, despite the treaty, and thus classified WP as an incendiary device instead of what it really is (all because it can be used differently).

Looks to me like the Chemical Weapons Treaty needs to be updated to include WP.

I agree, I wouldn't call it "Chemical Warfare". Nevertheless, I wonder if the way WP was used in Fallujah, it couldn't be described as a chemical weapon.

Now, let's again look at the definition from the Chemical Weapons Convention

Fedral wrote:

1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

[...]

2. "Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

I'd say that the "purposes not prohibited under this Convention" would be using it to produce smoke, for screening purposes. Nada mas.

Interesting question, though. I have no idea whether WP would change its status.

That's what I was getting at. I can see the debates revolving around specific definitions of words when what should be looked at are actions. Following your point, it's irrelevant if the murder weapon was a knife or a croquet mallet - it's still a weapon used to murder.

But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people.

goodfielder wrote:

That's what I was getting at. I can see the debates revolving around specific definitions of words when what should be looked at are actions. Following your point, it's irrelevant if the murder weapon was a knife or a croquet mallet - it's still a weapon used to murder.

Good point. It's the crime that gets punished, not the weapon. Even if you'd kill somebody with a frying pan, you would (if caught) get sentenced for murder.

Couldn't therefore the act of firing WP shells right at an enemy fighter in a battle rightfully be characterized as chemical warfare?

Quote:

Couldn't therefore the act of firing WP shells right at an enemy fighter in a battle rightfully be characterized as chemical warfare?

At the risk of being a bit obvious, it depends on the definition of "chemical warfare" but it seems intuitively correct to me.

I reckon it would be right up there with "war crime".

America lied about the use of chemical weapons. Period. You lose.

Fedral wrote:

Chemical Weapons ARE WMDs

Fedral, according to the definition in the Convention you posted, that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. It seems.

White phosphorous if used as a weapon is not a conventional weapon.