• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

Ok lets put it in context. WP is a very effective weapon at clearly out enemy positions. Because the stuff is leathal and burns the crap out of its intended victim. Sure inncocent civilians could be hurt. But in same manner civilians could be hurt by fragmentation grenades.

The US military has not used nerve gas agents to kill enemies so I don't see what the fuss is about.

Really the media should be more worried why the U.S administration intially denied the use of WP as an incineratory weapon? When it is likely that 'shake and bake' is a common practice used by soldiers all over the world. Gunny Sgt, would know more.

Technically even a bullet is a chemical weapon, because the thing doesn't fly out a gun by magic.

I would state that a chemical weapon, is a weapon that kills its victim by interfering with the cellular function of the intended victim. So the enemy of target is not killed by trauma, as in the case of the a bullet, grenade, explosion, or burn, but rather a compound interfering with biological functions of the cell, or the metabolism of the target.
 
Australianlibertarian said:
Ok lets put it in context. WP is a very effective weapon at clearly out enemy positions. Because the stuff is leathal and burns the crap out of its intended victim. Sure inncocent civilians could be hurt. But in same manner civilians could be hurt by fragmentation grenades.

The US military has not used nerve gas agents to kill enemies so I don't see what the fuss is about.

Really the media should be more worried why the U.S administration intially denied the use of WP as an incineratory weapon? When it is likely that 'shake and bake' is a common practice used by soldiers all over the world. Gunny Sgt, would know more.

Technically even a bullet is a chemical weapon, because the thing doesn't fly out a gun by magic.

I would state that a chemical weapon, is a weapon that kills its victim by interfering with the cellular function of the intended victim. So the enemy of target is not killed by trauma, as in the case of the a bullet, grenade, explosion, or burn, but rather a compound interfering with biological functions of the cell, or the metabolism of the target.


Well, I definately say WP COULD apply as a chemical weapon, if you think that the way WP ignites on contact with water, and extration of water certainly interferes with the cellular function of the human body. That's why the body and skin burn, but not the clothing on the victim of it's exposure. This is Definately a weapon that COULD be both incindeary and Chemical weapon. Remember, that some things, have dual, or multiple, uses, even weapons.

Furthermore, as I pointed out, WP is porhinited, BY US Law and Treaty, from use on Civilian Areas. Furthermore, the US military did not allow many, particularly male, non-combatants to leave.
 
Fact One: Willie Pete is a weapon within our arsenol. It's used in a Military application as an incendiary agent, smoke-screening agent, and as an antipersonnel flame compound capable of causing serious burns. Opponents of its use consider it a chemical weapon, however, the use of white phosphorus against military targets (and outside civilian areas) is not specifically banned by any treaty. It is not considered a "chemical" weapon and it is not considered WMD.

Fact Two: Fallujah was not an "innocent" city. It was considered the terrorist capitol of the world. After the Bush Administration made the mistake of listening to the bleeding heart Al-Jazeer, politicians, and other media sources, the Marines were pulled back out of Fallujah the first time. This gave Al-Queda a base of operation in close proximity to Baghdad. A place where Al-Queda had chosen to Headquarter their efforts. A place full of IED warehouses and factories. A place where the vastly large Sunni population were harboring, housing, and supporting Al-Queda and the local Sunni fighters who were, AT THAT TIME, collaberating their violence upon fellow Muslims and American troops. A place where hospitals, ambulances, and mosques were used as enemy CPs (Command Posts). They hoped to use our "higher morality" and adherence to the laws of war to wage battle upon us from these locations like they did in Najaaf. "The US military did not allow many, particularly male, non-combatants to leave" is an accurate statement. It is called containment. We do the same thing by preventing men between a certain age from entering a town or city during a raid. The headaches with dealing with this problem is that the minute we attack, all men between the ages of 16 and 50 put their weapons away and become "non-combatant." In most cases, the military finds more weapons stored away than in the hands of our enemies making them "non-combatants."
 
Originally posted by GySgt:
Fact One: Willie Pete is a weapon within our arsenol. It's used in a Military application as an incendiary agent, smoke-screening agent, and as an antipersonnel flame compound capable of causing serious burns. Opponents of its use consider it a chemical weapon, however, the use of white phosphorus against military targets (and outside civilian areas) is not specifically banned by any treaty. It is not considered a "chemical" weapon and it is not considered WMD.
Call it whatever you want. It has the same affect as napalm. And that is banned. I think its disgusting that you would defend its use.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Fact Two: Fallujah was not an "innocent" city. It was considered the terrorist capitol of the world. After the Bush Administration made the mistake of listening to the bleeding heart Al-Jazeer, politicians, and other media sources, the Marines were pulled back out of Fallujah the first time. This gave Al-Queda a base of operation in close proximity to Baghdad. A place where Al-Queda had chosen to Headquarter their efforts. A place full of IED warehouses and factories. A place where the vastly large Sunni population were harboring, housing, and supporting Al-Queda and the local Sunni fighters who were, AT THAT TIME, collaberating their violence upon fellow Muslims and American troops. A place where hospitals, ambulances, and mosques were used as enemy CPs (Command Posts). They hoped to use our "higher morality" and adherence to the laws of war to wage battle upon us from these locations like they did in Najaaf. "The US military did not allow many, particularly male, non-combatants to leave" is an accurate statement. It is called containment. We do the same thing by preventing men between a certain age from entering a town or city during a raid. The headaches with dealing with this problem is that the minute we attack, all men between the ages of 16 and 50 put their weapons away and become "non-combatant." In most cases, the military finds more weapons stored away than in the hands of our enemies making them "non-combatants."
This was a city of 300,000 residents. What we did there was a crime against humanity.
 
Billo_Really said:
Call it whatever you want. It has the same affect as napalm. And that is banned. I think its disgusting that you would defend its use.

I didn't defend it. I merely stated a fact. It's not a matter of what "I" call it. It is not considered a chemical weapon and not banned by any treaty. I might also add that despite its definition, I have never known it to be used on personnel. That's not to imply that personel haven't been harmed by it's other uses.

Billo_Really said:
This was a city of 300,000 residents. What we did there was a crime against humanity.

What's your point? So is war. So is pretty much everything to you. Oddly enough, Saddam's crimes seemed to be "none of our business" to you - so much for your selective crimes against humanity. Fallujah represents what will happen when an entire city harbors and aids legions of Islamic extremists. We didn't cause it to happen, we merely reacted to the scenario they presented. Even in WWII, cities were bombed and militarily dealt with where ever the enemy dug themselves in to fight.
 
Last edited:
Australianlibertarian said:
Ok lets put it in context. WP is a very effective weapon at clearly out enemy positions. Because the stuff is leathal and burns the crap out of its intended victim. Sure inncocent civilians could be hurt. But in same manner civilians could be hurt by fragmentation grenades.

The US military has not used nerve gas agents to kill enemies so I don't see what the fuss is about.

Really the media should be more worried why the U.S administration intially denied the use of WP as an incineratory weapon? When it is likely that 'shake and bake' is a common practice used by soldiers all over the world. Gunny Sgt, would know more.

I'm not really entering this debate, it is doing fine by itself. I thought I might point out a few basics.

WP is nothing like a grenade. When a grenade explodes it either kills, injurs or not. When WP weapons leave fragments, or you breath in a large amount of the gas it will kill you unless you remove the fragments. WP fragments will burn until either the fragments are used up or all the water in your body is gone. It is one of those weapons were you either get medical treatment or you cut off the limb were the fragments are. If pieces get near major organs, you are probably dead in a few hours with medical treatment. If you breath in dust, at very least you won't breath right ever again. This is compared to granade fragments which you could live with for years.

Now on the issue on is it banned(as a weapon). For the US: NO. For just about everyone else including Brittian and Italy, oh ya. You might begin to be able to understand why this is such a big deal in Europe. There is a UN bann on incideary weapons like WP, but, like so many other weapon bans, the US is one of the few countries that has refused to sign it. The USA hasn't signed treaties covering incideary weapons, lands mines, has very nearly broken the treaties on nuclear. I'm not even sure we have signed ones covering napalm as it seems the british government hesitately confirm to the public we (USA) have used a weapon identical in nature to napalm called MK-77(not WP) in Iraq. Although noone know for certain when or where it has been used, just that it has. US military just is not saying.

Just not to give people the wrong idea, we have signed treaties against targeting civilians or civilian areas with anything.

Why? Is it right, Is it wrong? I don't know. Everyone has their conspiracy theories on the subject. The politics of this subject are way beyound me.
 
kcasper said:
I'm not really entering this debate, it is doing fine by itself. I thought I might point out a few basics.

WP is nothing like a grenade. When a grenade explodes it either kills, injurs or not. When WP weapons leave fragments, or you breath in a large amount of the gas it will kill you unless you remove the fragments. WP fragments will burn until either the fragments are used up or all the water in your body is gone. It is one of those weapons were you either get medical treatment or you cut off the limb were the fragments are. If pieces get near major organs, you are probably dead in a few hours with medical treatment. If you breath in dust, at very least you won't breath right ever again. This is compared to granade fragments which you could live with for years.

Now on the issue on is it banned(as a weapon). For the US: NO. For just about everyone else including Brittian and Italy, oh ya. You might begin to be able to understand why this is such a big deal in Europe. There is a UN bann on incideary weapons like WP, but, like so many other weapon bans, the US is one of the few countries that has refused to sign it. The USA hasn't signed treaties covering incideary weapons, lands mines, has very nearly broken the treaties on nuclear. I'm not even sure we have signed ones covering napalm as it seems the british government hesitately confirm to the public we (USA) have used a weapon identical in nature to napalm called MK-77(not WP) in Iraq. Although noone know for certain when or where it has been used, just that it has. US military just is not saying.

Just not to give people the wrong idea, we have signed treaties against targeting civilians or civilian areas with anything.

Why? Is it right, Is it wrong? I don't know. Everyone has their conspiracy theories on the subject. The politics of this subject are way beyound me.


Well, Willie Pete has extraordinary uses outside of it being a weapon. I don't know of any occasion where it was used as a weapon.
 
Originally posted by GySgt:
What's your point? So is war. So is pretty much everything to you. Oddly enough, Saddam's crimes seemed to be "none of our business" to you - so much for your selective crimes against humanity. Fallujah represents what will happen when an entire city harbors and aids legions of Islamic extremists. We didn't cause it to happen, we merely reacted to the scenario they presented. Even in WWII, cities were bombed and militarily dealt with where ever the enemy dug themselves in to fight.
Your right, I don't think his crimes were any of our business. Barring UNSC resolutions, that is not a reason to attack a country. By the way, how much is 1 legion?
 
Billo_Really said:
Your right, I don't think his crimes were any of our business. Barring UNSC resolutions, that is not a reason to attack a country. By the way, how much is 1 legion?

Enough to fight through a city block to block.
 
Billo,

By the way, how much is 1 legion?

I think Gunny was using 'legions' as a figure of speech and not literally. Nonetheless, Billo, for your continued education, a legion as used in Roman times, referred to an infantry unit which ranged in strength from about 3,000 men in the early Roman days, up to about 5,000 when Augustus ruled. Links availble on request, or just google 'roman legions' for lots of info. :2razz:
 
Originally Posted by oldreliable67:
I think Gunny was using 'legions' as a figure of speech and not literally. Nonetheless, Billo, for your continued education, a legion as used in Roman times, referred to an infantry unit which ranged in strength from about 3,000 men in the early Roman days, up to about 5,000 when Augustus ruled. Links availble on request, or just google 'roman legions' for lots of info
I was being facetious. I was trying to get Gunny to tell me just how many insurgents were in Falluja at the time we attacked. I think it is appauling what we did there.
 
Originally posted by GySgt:
Enough to fight through a city block to block.
How many innocent legions did it cost?
 
well now, from what i remember, we used a couple of pretty powerful WMDs in World War II,

i hope i don't have to spell out which ones we used for anyone,
 
Originally posted by changintimes
well now, from what i remember, we used a couple of pretty powerful WMDs in World War II,

i hope i don't have to spell out which ones we used for anyone,
And the point is...
 
Billo_Really said:
How many innocent legions did it cost?

As much as was necessary. The same in every war. The question is..."How many of them were innocent?" I don't mean the ones that pretended to be innocent because they wear no uniforms and are just eager to get away so that they can build IEDs and kill in another town. I'm not talking about the ones that endangered their families by opening their houses to their "martyrs" who targetted Shi'ite civilians and made their fellow Sunni proud only to - pay the price, pretend to be innocent for the world, and then gravitate towards military camps for aid. I'm not talking about the ones that pretended to be innocent as they cheered every Muslim death in a police or army recruit line.

"How many of them were innocent?" Not a lot. I can say this because I know Fallujah intimately. How well do you know it? When claiming that we spilt more innocent blood than guilty....where is your basis for this accusation - some Sunni Iraqis that could easily have been terrorists inside Fallujah that got away and is now using you?

Like I said...we didn't cause this. They presented themselves in this manner and we dealt with it. It's called the price of doing business. The terrorists, insurgency and the local Sunni that joined them decided that waging war from their people's hospitals and mosques was acceptable. The decided to make a city the terrorist capitol of the world and created IED factories. They decided to use their people as shields. The decided to do this, becuase they did not expect us to come back and if we did, they expected us to "honor" what they did not.

If left to deal with it the first time instead of the Bush administration allowing the bleeding heart media screw us up and pulling us out....they wouldn't have been able to dig in as they did the second time we inevitably had to go back.
 
Last edited:
Billo_Really said:
And the point is...

I think the point was to tell you not to pretend to be so niave and "shocked." We have done far worse in our past and making an issue over something this minor is rediculous.

...of course, that was just my interpretation.
 
Originally posted by GySgt:
I think the point was to tell you not to pretend to be so niave and "shocked." We have done far worse in our past and making an issue over something this minor is rediculous.

...of course, that was just my interpretation.
Just another nail in the coffin. And the word is r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s.
 
Back
Top Bottom