• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

US used chemical weapon in Iraq

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The US admitted on November 15th, after incremental denials over the past year, that it used the chemical weapon white phosphorus against Iraqi insurgent troops in Falujah.

There is some disagreement about whether this specific chemical weapon is banned or that the US is signatory to the portion of a treaty that does ban it.

Regardless, Saddam used chemical weapons, and we were ostensibly morally offended by that. Were we offended simply because he signed a treaty (if, in fact, he did)? Or was it because chemical weapons are a WMD whether banned by treaty or not? Were the ones he used worse than the ones we used? Why have we not signed the portion of the treaty that does ban it? It does seem a sick irony that we used WMD as an excuse to invade Iraq, and then used some ourselves.

Interested in many people's thoughts here.

For reference:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=%22white+phosphorus%22+fallujah
 

Old and wise

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The allied forces used phosphorus to burn 30,000 innocent people to death in one night in Dresden during WWII. I know because I was one of the survivors. Somehow it seem justifiable when the U.S. does that but the rest of the world is not.

Isn't it wonderful how we jam democracy down peoples throats whether they like it or not? No wonder the world hates us.:(
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Old and wise said:
The allied forces used phosphorus to burn 30,000 innocent people to death in one night in Dresden during WWII. I know because I was one of the survivors. Somehow it seem justifiable when the U.S. does that but the rest of the world is not.

Isn't it wonderful how we jam democracy down peoples throats whether they like it or not? No wonder the world hates us.:(
Hmmmm, maybe you would have done better had we let the German's do it, Yeah, that would have been a lot better, ingrate! You would be neither, old, or wise, had we not done what we did, the wise part is becoming more and more hard to digest sir!:roll:
 
Last edited:

Old and wise

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Deegan said:
Hmmmm, maybe you would have done better had we let the German's do it, Yeah, that would have been a lot better, ingrate! You would be neither, old, or wise, had we not done what we did, the wise part is becoming more and more hard to digest sir!:roll:
The Germans would never have done that to their own people. They murdered a lot of jews, which was inexcusable, but to burn 30,000 innocent civilians to death is a war crime that can not be denied.

And how would you know? Have you ever lived through that kind of hell?
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"The US admitted on November 15th, after incremental denials over the past year, that it used the chemical weapon white phosphorus against Iraqi insurgent troops in Falujah.

There is some disagreement about whether this specific chemical weapon is banned or that the US is signatory to the portion of a treaty that does ban it.

Regardless, Saddam used chemical weapons, and we were ostensibly morally offended by that. Were we offended simply because he signed a treaty (if, in fact, he did)? Or was it because chemical weapons are a WMD whether banned by treaty or not? Were the ones he used worse than the ones we used? Why have we not signed the portion of the treaty that does ban it? It does seem a sick irony that we used WMD as an excuse to invade Iraq, and then used some ourselves."- Deezad


Saddam used WMD to commit genocide. We used white phosphorous to wipe out terrorists trying to kill innocent Iraqis, American troops, and Iraqi police. Huge difference morally.

Our objection was in no way restricted to Saddam's choice of weapon. We took issue with his repeated missile attacks on Israeli civilians, his sponsoring of Palestinian suicide bombers, his decisions to start a war with Iran and to attack Saudi Arabi, and to invade Kuwait. Get it?

He had proven himself an intolerable threat and purely destructive force not to be trusted with "defensive" WMD. Our use was legitimate. The unaccounted for stockpiles of WMD still never found were an unacceptable risk after 9/11, and most Democrats are even on record sharing that sentiment.





And yes, I am emphatically ok with shoving democracy down other countries' throats. Justification?..It is the only legitimate type of government in existence (consent of the governed). Also, why not do as Ann Coulter says: Shoot their leaders, convert them to democracy, and give them something to do other than slaughtering infedels. When we don't bring about democracies, the countries we let fester just have to be bailed out of horrific crises with billions of our tax dollars anyway, so why not save ourselves some money and create a more morally acceptable world where people rule themselves?
 
Last edited:

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Old and wise said:
The Germans would never have done that to their own people. They murdered a lot of jews, which was inexcusable, but to burn 30,000 innocent civilians to death is a war crime that can not be denied.

And how would you know? Have you ever lived through that kind of hell?

The Jews were their own people, just as the Christian were, and the Germans that refused to do Hitlers bidding. If you were burned, blame Hitler, not the states, as you could have stood up, but you and yours decided to wait it out, your country deserves every scare it has, if you want sympathy, you won't get it from me. :roll:

And yes, I have, it was September 11th 2001
 

Old and wise

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Deegan said:
The Jews were their own people, just as the Christian were, and the Germans that refused to do Hitlers bidding. If you were burned, blame Hitler, not the states, as you could have stood up, but you and yours decided to wait it out, your country deserves every scare it has, if you want sympathy, you won't get it from me. :roll:

And yes, I have, it was September 11th 2001
I am not asking for sympathy nor would I expect sympathy from you. You appear to me to be nothing but an extreme neocon that follows the dictator Bush's philosophy no matter what the rest of the world thinks.

Yes, I was burned, but I have written it off as an unfortunate consequence of war, but that still does not make it right. Just as the use of phosphorus in Iraq by our troops is not right. But how could anyone convince a blind man?
 

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Old and wise said:
The allied forces used phosphorus to burn 30,000 innocent people to death in one night in Dresden during WWII. I know because I was one of the survivors. Somehow it seem justifiable when the U.S. does that but the rest of the world is not.

Isn't it wonderful how we jam democracy down peoples throats whether they like it or not? No wonder the world hates us.:(
Let me try to get your post right. You were a German survivor of these alledged evil American atrocities, but yet you moved to America. Why? Either you are the most forgiving person in the world or you are full of it. If you are still that disgusted with America get on das boot and sail back to where you came from.
 

Repubteen

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
56
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well when this argument was posted ,the poster was not sure if the US had permission to use this weapon. But if we were why cant we use it? It seems to me like we have these weapons so we can threaten , but never to use. And the terrorist up until this point new that. We need to keep doing things like this so the terrorist understand we mean business.
 

Old and wise

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ANAV said:
Let me try to get your post right. You were a German survivor of these alledged evil American atrocities, but yet you moved to America. Why? Either you are the most forgiving person in the world or you are full of it. If you are still that disgusted with America get on das boot and sail back to where you came from.
Like I said, it was a part of war and I hold no ill feelings to this country. I simply stated that it was not proper to burn 30,000 innocent people to death with phosphorus.

I came to America because my own father died in the German army and my mother married an American soldier. I hold no ill feeling against this country. In fact, I enlisted in the American army 3 years after I arrived here and spent 18 month in Korea with 5 months in combat, with a nice shrapnel wound to my leg to show for it.

I fully support this country in any war that is justified. The current one is not.
 

Repubteen

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
56
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I fully support this country in any war that is justified. The current one is not.
How can you say that? I don't know about the WMD's, but Iraq was harboring terrorists and Saddam was a ruthless murder( I know this is repetitive). I'm guessing your not the most Conservative person,so I'm .And if that is the case your own boys Kennedy:drink , Kerry and CLINTON said Saddam was a threat, and Ted saw the plan for Iraq and he voted for it so...It's not just bush because your guys wanted it to.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Repubteen said:
How can you say that? I don't know about the WMD's, but Iraq was harboring terrorists and Saddam was a ruthless murder( I know this is repetitive). I'm guessing your not the most Conservative person,so I'm .And if that is the case your own boys Kennedy:drink , Kerry and CLINTON said Saddam was a threat, and Ted saw the plan for Iraq and he voted for it so...It's not just bush because your guys wanted it to.
Don't you get it yet? Clinton and Kerry and Kennedy were all just, you know, mistaken. Bush, however, lied. :roll:

:rofl
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
for Clarity, White Phosphorus, legally, is not considered a chemical weapon. It is considered an incendiary weapon, and as such is only prohobited from use in civilian populations. There is some argument (and I don't buy it) that at the time of it's use in Falluja, that there should have been no remaining or significant civilian populations present, as a result of the city's evacuation.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
WP is not a chemical weapon any more that RDX or TNT or smokeless gunpowder is a chemical weapon.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Great Phosphorus Phlip Phlop

Last week, the administration was denying that it used white phosphorus against the population of Fallujah last year. This week, after overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they reversed their position and admitted using it, but claimed that only insurgents got the chemical treatment. Tell that to the women, children, and even babies who died in hellish agony.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
[Moderator mode]

The thread "The Great Phosphorus Phlip Phlop" has been merged into this one...same topic...

[/Moderator mode]
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
People that support (or are indifferent to) using this weapon [phospherous] in Iraq, are the same people who keep trying to convince others that we went in there because we cared enough about Iraqis to bring them democracy and liberate them from tyranny. They are also the same people who initially blew off these reports as bullshit, left-wing propaganda. Well, low and behold, it wasn't bullshit. One would think now that their busted, they would show a little compassion to "throwing another Sunni on the barby". No f_cking way! Yeah, we care about Iraqis. We care enough to dismiss this as a no-big-deal thing while their bodies glow in the dark. That's because were god-damn Americans and we will democratize 'yall. So don't f_ck with us! Cuz we care.
 

Mancunian

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
72
Reaction score
2
Location
Manchester, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Repubteen said:
Well when this argument was posted ,the poster was not sure if the US had permission to use this weapon. But if we were why cant we use it? It seems to me like we have these weapons so we can threaten , but never to use. And the terrorist up until this point new that. We need to keep doing things like this so the terrorist understand we mean business.
You have nuclear weapons, why not use them? The terrorists will know you mean business then.
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
libertarian_knight said:
for Clarity, White Phosphorus, legally, is not considered a chemical weapon. It is considered an incendiary weapon, and as such is only prohobited from use in civilian populations. There is some argument (and I don't buy it) that at the time of it's use in Falluja, that there should have been no remaining or significant civilian populations present, as a result of the city's evacuation.
My understanding is that WP is, in fact, a chemical weapon. But, I suppose a person could debate all day about the definition of chemical weapon. It is also my understanding that some treaties, not signed by the US, ban its use at all.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Dezaad said:
My understanding is that WP is, in fact, a chemical weapon. But, I suppose a person could debate all day about the definition of chemical weapon. It is also my understanding that some treaties, not signed by the US, ban its use at all.
WP is a chemical, and is Chemically reactive on people. However, the chemical reaction that occurs on people is burning. It will set people (who have water in thier bodies) on fire, essentially. It will also set just about anything else on fire when lit. It can not be put out using water, because WP is chemically reactive with water, and oxidizes. It's use as a weapon is to set things on fire, either because of the heat generated, or the reaction on things with water. And though, it is very chemically reactive to most living things, it is still an incindeary weapon, especially in legal classification.

People may want to argue that it SHOULD legally be considered a Chemical weapon, and thus banned as such; its current status however (at least as to what you pointed out, what treaties and law the USA is signatory to) is that it is not a chemical weapon. I would agree, that it's use as a weapon, should be that on not only an incindeary weapon, but also a chemical weapon.

It is a particularly nasty fire bomb, because water makes it burn. Tactically it's use as a weapon has more in common with Napalm, than nerve gas.
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Old and wise said:
The Germans would never have done that to their own people. They murdered a lot of jews, which was inexcusable, but to burn 30,000 innocent civilians to death is a war crime that can not be denied.
Did you honestly just write that? With a straight face?

They murdered 6 million jews (in addition to a few million gypsies and other undesirables), but they NEVER would have burned 30,000 innocent people to death! Never!

What a joke.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
People here are missing one key fact....

If WP is a chemical weapon, then that's incontrovertable proof that Saddam had WMD.

You do know that Saddam had stockpiles of WP that we found when we invaded, correct?

It's interesting how when we found it then, the MSM claimed that it wasn't a WMD because that would destroy the "No WMD in Iraq" meme.

However, now that it's come to light that the US may have used it, it's back to full on WMD status.

So how do you want it? Either we're doing nothing wrong in using it and our troops are behaving responsibly, or Saddam had WMD's and our mission was justified.

It's a sad state of affairs when the left is eager to avoid either of those choices...

Riiiiiight....
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
RightatNYU said:
People here are missing one key fact....

If WP is a chemical weapon, then that's incontrovertable proof that Saddam had WMD.

You do know that Saddam had stockpiles of WP that we found when we invaded, correct?

It's interesting how when we found it then, the MSM claimed that it wasn't a WMD because that would destroy the "No WMD in Iraq" meme.

However, now that it's come to light that the US may have used it, it's back to full on WMD status.

So how do you want it? Either we're doing nothing wrong in using it and our troops are behaving responsibly, or Saddam had WMD's and our mission was justified.

It's a sad state of affairs when the left is eager to avoid either of those choices...

Riiiiiight....
WP weapons aren't, at least according to US law and many international treaties, chemical weapons, read my post on the prior page for clarity if necessary, it's an incideary weapon, a firebomb.

Furthermore, WP by itself, is not a weapon, as we should know by now. WP is a multi use product. When configured for munitions use, the WP weapons are still classified as incindeary. It's closer to Napalm than mustard gas.

Some countries do consider it a chem weapon, on their own, and ban it's use as a weapon. The Arguement can be made that it is indeed a chemical weapon, but legally it's not so. And the arguement, is generally weak, since it's better used as a firebomb. and Legally, with the US as a signatory to a treaty (which name escapes me at the moment) as a firebomb, it's use is prohibited in civilian areas.
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
libertarian_knight said:
WP weapons aren't, at least according to US law and many international treaties, chemical weapons, read my post on the prior page for clarity if necessary, it's an incideary weapon, a firebomb.

Furthermore, WP by itself, is not a weapon, as we should know by now. WP is a multi use product. When configured for munitions use, the WP weapons are still classified as incindeary. It's closer to Napalm than mustard gas.

Some countries do consider it a chem weapon, on their own, and ban it's use as a weapon. The Arguement can be made that it is indeed a chemical weapon, but legally it's not so. And the arguement, is generally weak, since it's better used as a firebomb. and Legally, with the US as a signatory to a treaty (which name escapes me at the moment) as a firebomb, it's use is prohibited in civilian areas.
That's my point. Every single army uses WP, as a smoke round or to illuminate the enemy at night. What's at issue is the US's use in limited situations of it as a weapon against terrorists, which is not agaisnt any treaty we're a signatory to. If its not a chemical weapon in that use, then it's not a problem. If it is, then Saddam had them too.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Re: The Great Phosphorus Phlip Phlop

danarhea said:
Last week, the administration was denying that it used white phosphorus against the population of Fallujah last year. This week, after overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they reversed their position and admitted using it, but claimed that only insurgents got the chemical treatment. Tell that to the women, children, and even babies who died in hellish agony.

Article is here.
From your source:

The substance can cause burning of the flesh but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical weapon.

Pretty much settles things, doesnt it?
 
Top Bottom