Re: Iraq: US used White Phosphorus as an offensive weapon
lodp wrote:The use of any chemical agent against humans, be it civilians or combatants is prohibited by the Chemical Weapons convention,
I guess it's a good thing that WP isn't a chemical weapon.
lodp wrote:It seems that in large parts of corporate media land the issue of whether this violates the CWC and consitutes a war crime is somewhat misrepresented. The point is not whether it was used deliberately against civilians (which pentagon spokespersons deny) but whether it was used against human targets at all - which is clearly the case.
That is incorrect. The only real point is the fact that we didn't deliberately target civilians.
lodp wrote:here's another report on the defence department document that referred to WP as a chemical weapon - when Saddam used it.
The document was anti-Saddam propaganda. It was no more truthful than the anti-American propaganda that babbles about chemical weapons.
Amigo wrote:That makes white phosphorus and depleted uranium. Were using illegal weapons to stop people from using illegal weapons that never existed. What are we?
We aren't using illegal weapons.
WP and DU are both fine weapons and are perfectly legal.
blatham wrote:Quote:Not that facts bother some folks.
To be fair (and accurate) big fella, there are two sets of facts involved. The legal facts of definition and treaty signing or treaty avoiding AND the facts regarding what happens to a human when this stuff lands on them.
WP burns at 5000 degrees Fahrenheit. And if the fire is doused, even under very cold water, it frequently reignites spontaneously as soon as it dries.
If a WP fragment hits someone, it usually burns them until either the fragment is removed or the fragment completely burns up, or until the wound burns all the way down to the bone.
oralloy wrote:Amigo wrote:That makes white phosphorus and depleted uranium. Were using illegal weapons to stop people from using illegal weapons that never existed. What are we?
We aren't using illegal weapons.
WP and DU are both fine weapons and are perfectly legal.
WP is illegal used as a weapon and if DU is legal the government should recognize it as the cause of Gulf war sickness. DU should be illegal it is highly radioactive and a indiscriminate killer and polluter. We support the troops my ass. Were using our own young men as cannon fodder. There worth no more to us then an Iraqi civilian. So long as we have a steady supply of kids looking for a way out of poverty who gives a ****. Right? Right. Cheers to that.
But like I said before everything is legal in war.
Amigo wrote:oralloy wrote:Amigo wrote:That makes white phosphorus and depleted uranium. Were using illegal weapons to stop people from using illegal weapons that never existed. What are we?
We aren't using illegal weapons.
WP and DU are both fine weapons and are perfectly legal.
WP is illegal used as a weapon
Nope. WP is perfectly legal used as an incendiary weapon.
Amigo wrote:if DU is legal the government should recognize it as the cause of Gulf war sickness.
I disagree. The government should only recognize things as causes of illness when there is scientific evidence backing up such a decision.
Amigo wrote:DU should be illegal it is highly radioactive and a indiscriminate killer and polluter.
DU is not "highly" radioactive, and it is hardly indiscriminate.
It is true that there is minor pollution around destroyed tanks that should be cleaned up.
Amigo wrote:We support the troops my ass. Were using our own young men as cannon fodder. There worth no more to us then an Iraqi civilian.
Ah. Is that why we have policies favoring tactics that protect our troops at the expense of increased collateral damage?
You got the wrong guy orally. Try somebody else.
Amigo wrote:You got the wrong guy orally. Try somebody else.
Got????
It is my intention to respond with the truth every time you post your anti-American propaganda here.
That there is no scientific evidence to back up that gulf war sickness is not caused by DU is about as anti-American as you can get and worse then propaganda it's an outright lie. I was called a traitor for saying what is now common knowledge because I care enough about fellow Americans to tell them the truth. There learning who lies to them and who tells them the truth. A true patriot has no problem speaking out against a government in the interest of his country and it's people. It's the foundation of our country. We will both see the day when the government will have to admit that DU is the cause of gulf war sickness.
Amigo wrote:That there is no scientific evidence to back up that gulf war sickness is caused by DU is about as anti-American as you can get and worse then propaganda it's an outright lie.
Nope. It is neither propaganda nor lie. It is fact.
Amigo wrote:I was called a traitor for saying what is now common knowledge because I care enough about fellow Americans to tell them the truth.
Well, some people react strongly when someone runs around telling outright falsehoods about their country.
Traitor may be a bit strong though. Treason has a precise definition.
Amigo wrote:We will both see the day when the government will have to admit that DU is the cause of gulf war sickness.
Not unless the science is there.
" If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical concsequences. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological."
"Personel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposures."
From the Army Enviromental Policy Institute (AEPI), Healh and Enviromental Concequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army, June 1995
"Short-term effects of high doses can result in death, while long-term effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer."
"Arosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects."
From the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) report, included as Appendix D of AMMCOM's Kinetic Enegy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, Danesi,July 1990. (six months before Desert Storm)
"Inhaled insoluble oxides stay in the lungs longer and pose a potential cancer risk due to radiation. Ingested DU dust can also pose both a radioactive risk."
Operation Desert Storm: Army Not Adequately Prepared to deal With Depleted Uranium Contamination, United States General Accounting Office(GAO/NSIAD-93-90),Jan 1993,pp.17-18
"The Committee concludes thet it is unlikely that health effects reports by Gulf War Veterans today are the result of exposure to depleted uranium during the gulf war."
From the final Report: Presidential Advisory Committee of gulf war Veterans Illnesses, December 1996
Amigo wrote:" If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical concsequences. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological."
What is missing there is the degree of risk. It is a hazard, yes, but a minor one.
Amigo wrote:"Arosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects."
From the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) report, included as Appendix D of AMMCOM's Kinetic Enegy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, Danesi,July 1990. (six months before Desert Storm)
"Inhaled insoluble oxides stay in the lungs longer and pose a potential cancer risk due to radiation. Ingested DU dust can also pose both a radioactive risk."
Operation Desert Storm: Army Not Adequately Prepared to deal With Depleted Uranium Contamination, United States General Accounting Office(GAO/NSIAD-93-90),Jan 1993,pp.17-18
It is certainly true that one shouldn't go messing around near destroyed tanks without proper protection. And the dust there should definitely be cleaned up.
Why is it true that you should not go messing around destroyed tanks?
Proper protetion from what?
Amigo wrote:Why is it true that you should not go messing around destroyed tanks?
Proper protetion from what?
The DU dust is a minor hazard. Not as big a risk as if it were lead dust that was causing the contamination, but the area around a destroyed tank should be treated cautiously until it is cleaned up.
oralloy wrote:Amigo wrote:Why is it true that you should not go messing around destroyed tanks?
Proper protetion from what?
The DU dust is a minor hazard. Not as big a risk as if it were lead dust that was causing the contamination, but the area around a destroyed tank should be treated cautiously until it is cleaned up.
Here is a good fact sheet on DU dust:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en
Oralloy, I'm a radical. I don't trust the WHO. I dispute them.
Are you implying that there might be somebody going around cleaning up DU dust. Oralloy, Were so far apart we can,t even debate.
The argument against D.U. is becoming overwhelming. If all you look at is the official story I don't know what to tell you.
Amigo wrote:Oralloy, I'm a radical. I don't trust the WHO. I dispute them.
Their page is consistent with what science has to say on the issue.
They seem a reputable organization. What reason is there to dispute them?
Amigo wrote:Are you implying that there might be somebody going around cleaning up DU dust.
No, I'm saying there
should be somebody going around cleaning up the dust.
Amigo wrote:The argument against D.U. is becoming overwhelming.
Not according to the science.
Amigo wrote:If all you look at is the official story I don't know what to tell you.
The official story is consistent with the science.
Quote:"any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm". i would argue that the following description of the effects of WP include some "chemical actions on life processes" (this shouldn't stop anyone from splitting hairs of course):
This definition can also include water.
Is water now a chemical weapon?
Oh goodness, we've been all through this elsewhere, mm. To reiterate:
1) water is not a chemical weapon
2) lightsticks are not fun anal tantalyzers
3) america isn't god's special buddy
blatham wrote:Oh goodness, we've been all through this elsewhere, mm. To reiterate:
1) water is not a chemical weapon
2) lightsticks are not fun anal tantalyzers
3) america isn't god's special buddy
1.It is a chenical that can be harmful or fatal to humans,as is any other chemical weapon.
So,it qualifies,even if you dont like it.
2.I have no idea what you use lightsticks for or where you insert them.Thats your business,not mine.
3.I never said it was.Have you?
