Dezaad
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Messages
- 5,057
- 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
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