• 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!

Vets, what is your opinion on the Syrian pullout?

Do you agree with the pullout as done?

  • No, we should remain there forever as the world's police.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .

Irredentist

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
1,587
Gender
Male
And here is a bit more.

The US was screamed at by some for the use of White Phosphorous in 2016 in Syria.

Therefore if it is so horrible and wrong, then the same people screaming about Turkey using it had better start screaming that President Obama had better be brought up on War Crimes charges.

Funny, but I bet nobody screaming about the use of Willy Pete will say this is a good idea.
White phosphorus can be legally used for smoke generation, or as an incendiary weapon against military targets in non civilian areas. Use as an incendiary against civilians or in civilian areas is prohibited by the atrociously named 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, held in Geneva. This document went into effect December 1983.
 

Irredentist

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
1,587
Gender
Male
That is what I just said!

Thank you for agreeing with me, and stating I am wrong at the same time.



And BTW, white phosphorous is not an "Incendiary Weapon".

I present to you the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons, UN addition to the Geneva Convention of 10 October 1980. Article 1, Protocol III:

I. Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
II. Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect.[/quiote]

The above are weapons that are specifically not considered to be "incendiary weapons".

So please, give me the Laws of Land Warfare source that prohibits the use of WP.

And yea, I admit I have a big advantage here. I had my first class in the Laws of Land Warfare in 1983, and actually taught one just 2 days ago.
White phosphorus can certainly be used as an incendiary weapon, and when incorporated into a weapon system designed to start fires, it is definitely considered such. White phosphorus in a smoke grenade is not an incendiary weapon. White phosphorus in a firebomb is.
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,083
Reaction score
7,023
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Noticed that there is much talk about how many Vets, past and present disagree with how we pulled out of Syria, so l thought it might be interesting to see what the Vets here think.
Thanks
They train us, then send us out into area denial missions just to show the enemy they can. You take casualties and there is no Geneva convention. They use the wounded as bait. Meanwhile the flyboys blow the crap out of the countryside destroying acres of “resistance” at a time. The flies and wild animals have a feast.

Then we pull back and do it again next year.

And that was in Vietnam. Not a hell of a lot has changed, but the generals probably still all smell like cheap pine after shave picked up in the PX by some dog-robber.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I hope this is sufficient to satisfy your skepticism...


The use of white phosphorus is not banned under international convention when it is used as an obscurant – to make a smokescreen or to illuminate a target (white phosphorus glows green when exposed to oxygen). To use it for incendiary weapons in civilian areas is banned under the Geneva convention...."

What is white phosphorus and did Turkey use it against the Kurds? | WSB-TV
Why are so many repeating exactly what I had already said?

And no, the use of this (or any weapon) is not prohibited in "civilian areas".

What is prohibited is the use of any weapon in civilian areas where there is no presence of enemy combatants. Hence, my example of soldiers fighting from a school. Because even under the Hague Protocols and Geneva Conventions, proscribed conflict areas loose their special protections the moment they are used for offensive military actions.

You can not fire weapons at a hospital.

You can not even fire weapons at a military hospital where enemy combatants are being restored to duty.

You can not fire at a hospital that has defensive weapon systems around it, like air missile defenses and infantry strongpoints.

You can however fire at a hospital if infantry troops that conducted an attack run to it as refuge, or are staging in it in preparation for offensive operations. Because at that moment it has lost it's protected status.

Please, at least make me try to think. These repeated rehashing of the exact same claims are already getting boring.

And once gain, not a single mention of the PKK in pages.

Sheesh, I swear that some of you have the reading comprehension of 3rd graders.
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
19,046
Reaction score
2,056
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Nope I mean in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Afghanistan and Iraq are established American conflicts in the ME compared to new American conflicts in the ME.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
White phosphorus can certainly be used as an incendiary weapon, and when incorporated into a weapon system designed to start fires, it is definitely considered such. White phosphorus in a smoke grenade is not an incendiary weapon. White phosphorus in a firebomb is.
Fine. Give me the International Document that recognizes it as such, along with the date, and specific article that makes such a claim.
 

Irredentist

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
1,587
Gender
Male
Fine. Give me the International Document that recognizes it as such, along with the date, and specific article that makes such a claim.
The same document we're discussing right now, the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which bans ALL incendiary weapon use against civilian targets, whether they include white phosphorus or not.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The same document we're discussing right now, the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which bans ALL incendiary weapon use against civilian targets, whether they include white phosphorus or not.
You mean the one I actually quoted and referenced just a few posts ago? The one that specifically excluded WP as an incendiary weapon?

I. Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
II. Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect.
The above are weapons that have "incendiary effects", but are specifically stated as not being "incendiary weapons".

The above is a list of weapons that are not considered to be "incendiary weapons". And WP falls under article I.

Funny how you reference a source, and you get it completely wrong.

And if there are enemy combatants in a civilian area, it is no longer a protected civilian area.

How many times am I going to have to repeat this? it is like trying to have a debate with a 2 year old.
 

Irredentist

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
1,587
Gender
Male
You mean the one I actually quoted and referenced just a few posts ago? The one that specifically excluded WP as an incendiary weapon?



The above are weapons that have "incendiary effects", but are specifically stated as not being "incendiary weapons".

The above is a list of weapons that are not considered to be "incendiary weapons". And WP falls under article I.

Funny how you reference a source, and you get it completely wrong.

And if there are enemy combatants in a civilian area, it is no longer a protected civilian area.

How many times am I going to have to repeat this? it is like trying to have a debate with a 2 year old.
I don't see white phosphorus specifically mentioned by name in that passage. It's the design and use of the weapon that defines it, you are reading an exclusion into it that isn't actually there. White phosphorus can be incorporated into many weapons systems, and when used in a smoke system is legal. But it also can and has been used as an incendiary, and against civilians or in civilian areas is illegal. No where is white phosphorus specifically excluded by name from this designation. In which case it falls under the terms of the treaty.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
37,803
Reaction score
13,518
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why are so many repeating exactly what I had already said?

And no, the use of this (or any weapon) is not prohibited in "civilian areas".

What is prohibited is the use of any weapon in civilian areas where there is no presence of enemy combatants. Hence, my example of soldiers fighting from a school. Because even under the Hague Protocols and Geneva Conventions, proscribed conflict areas loose their special protections the moment they are used for offensive military actions.

You can not fire weapons at a hospital.

You can not even fire weapons at a military hospital where enemy combatants are being restored to duty.

You can not fire at a hospital that has defensive weapon systems around it, like air missile defenses and infantry strongpoints.

You can however fire at a hospital if infantry troops that conducted an attack run to it as refuge, or are staging in it in preparation for offensive operations. Because at that moment it has lost it's protected status.

Please, at least make me try to think. These repeated rehashing of the exact same claims are already getting boring.

And once gain, not a single mention of the PKK in pages.

Sheesh, I swear that some of you have the reading comprehension of 3rd graders.

Geez, you're a hard nut to crack.


"...Owing to the incendiary effects of WP, munitions containing WP can fall within the ambit of the 1980 Protocol on Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons). The Protocol defines incendiary weapons as:

any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.​

In keeping with this definition, any munition, including improvised devices, containing WP and that is ‘primarily designed’ to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons is covered by the Protocol’s provisions. Consequently, aerial delivery, in the conduct of hostilities, of incendiary weapons containing WP within a concentration of civilians is prohibited...."

https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/...ssue1/Reyhan10U.Pa.J.L.&Soc.Change1(2007).pdf


No mention of the PKK? Perhaps that's because they have nothing to do with it.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here, I am quoting your own reference:

Geez, you're a hard nut to crack.

any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.
And that is not White Phosphorous. It is primarily used for creating smoke or light. WP flares create fire, but their use is in illuminating a battlefield, not as an incendiary weapon.

This is the same kind of nonsense that pops up when CS gas is used for riot control. For some reason people try over and over to make the claim that CS is a "Chemical Weapon" and should be banned. Generally through nitpicking and with this amazing inability to find any actual legal reference that states so.

Oh, and BTW CS is recognized as a "chemical weapon" when it is used against troops as a way to render them ineffective or as part of a military action. It is not judged to be illegal when used as a means of reduced force against unarmed civilians.

Once again, you find an article written by a lawyer. Not presented or judged on by the Hague, or any other International body. You pick a single application of a weapon, and try to make it fit into an application that does not apply.

And you have yet to provide any factual reference. The closest is that of an Entertainment Lawyer in LA.

Technically by your claim, the use of tracer rounds is illegal because they are an incendiary. The use of CS gas is illegal because not only do they emit choking smoke, they are also an incendiary and can start fires (as the SLA discovered in 1974).

But factually, because the purpose of tracer rounds and CS gas is something completely different and the incendiary effect is secondary to your use, they are not "incendiary weapons".

So when are you going to push for the arrest and incarceration of President Obama as a war criminal?
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
37,803
Reaction score
13,518
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here, I am quoting your own reference:



And that is not White Phosphorous. It is primarily used for creating smoke or light. WP flares create fire, but their use is in illuminating a battlefield, not as an incendiary weapon.

This is the same kind of nonsense that pops up when CS gas is used for riot control. For some reason people try over and over to make the claim that CS is a "Chemical Weapon" and should be banned. Generally through nitpicking and with this amazing inability to find any actual legal reference that states so.

Oh, and BTW CS is recognized as a "chemical weapon" when it is used against troops as a way to render them ineffective or as part of a military action. It is not judged to be illegal when used as a means of reduced force against unarmed civilians.

Once again, you find an article written by a lawyer. Not presented or judged on by the Hague, or any other International body. You pick a single application of a weapon, and try to make it fit into an application that does not apply.

And you have yet to provide any factual reference. The closest is that of an Entertainment Lawyer in LA.

Technically by your claim, the use of tracer rounds is illegal because they are an incendiary. The use of CS gas is illegal because not only do they emit choking smoke, they are also an incendiary and can start fires (as the SLA discovered in 1974).

But factually, because the purpose of tracer rounds and CS gas is something completely different and the incendiary effect is secondary to your use, they are not "incendiary weapons".

So when are you going to push for the arrest and incarceration of President Obama as a war criminal?
I can you show you the evidence but I can't make you think. I give up...have it your way.
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
17,914
Reaction score
5,128
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Not true.

WP is not recognized as either a chemical weapon, nor as an incendiary weapon. It's use is in no way restricted under the laws of land warfare.

Now saying that, many countries (including the US) have made the choice to limit how it is used. But it is not illegal to use, nor is it restricted in how it can be used. Other than under the other laws of land warfare.
Conventions forbid it's use on civilians as a primary target, and us manuals generally forbid it in theory, however doctrine and field manuals do not see eye to eye. The us and most nations consider willy pete to be forbidden for use on civilians, insurgents, or even enemy combatents unless it's use it deemed worthy where the human lives lost would be less than not using it, so in doctrine it is technically forbidden but also has some gray area.

It is no surprise that it is forbidden for many uses on state govt levels rather than through convention, as the stuff is completely inhumane when used intentionally on human targets, especially in cases where normal munitions complete the same task or exceed it.
 

Casper

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
25,732
Reaction score
10,643
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Afghanistan and Iraq are established American conflicts in the ME compared to new American conflicts in the ME.
Adding thousands of additional troops is not pulling out, is there some reason you miss that fact?
 

Casper

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
25,732
Reaction score
10,643
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
They train us, then send us out into area denial missions just to show the enemy they can. You take casualties and there is no Geneva convention. They use the wounded as bait. Meanwhile the flyboys blow the crap out of the countryside destroying acres of “resistance” at a time. The flies and wild animals have a feast.

Then we pull back and do it again next year.

And that was in Vietnam. Not a hell of a lot has changed, but the generals probably still all smell like cheap pine after shave picked up in the PX by some dog-robber.
Well, that brings back memories, yes I agree, I just think there is a Right and wrong way to do things. How we pulled out if Vietnam was the wrong again at, and we do not know how to pull out of Afghanistan or Iraq.
One huge error we have been making since Vietnam, Nation Building, never works and never will, the troops are not trained for it and it is pointless other than those people in our controlled turf to use the opportunity to better their Nation, no one values Freedom as those that fought for it
 

Casper

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
25,732
Reaction score
10,643
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Afghanistan and Iraq are established American conflicts in the ME compared to new American conflicts in the ME.
Your point is what exactly???
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Conventions forbid it's use on civilians as a primary target, and us manuals generally forbid it in theory, however doctrine and field manuals do not see eye to eye. The us and most nations consider willy pete to be forbidden for use on civilians, insurgents, or even enemy combatents unless it's use it deemed worthy where the human lives lost would be less than not using it, so in doctrine it is technically forbidden but also has some gray area.

It is no surprise that it is forbidden for many uses on state govt levels rather than through convention, as the stuff is completely inhumane when used intentionally on human targets, especially in cases where normal munitions complete the same task or exceed it.
And in this I agree 100%.

As is typical in a great many instances here, I am not arguing from my belief in any way. I doubt most in here could actually pin down my beliefs in a great many things. I am simply making an argument based on International laws and treaties. But is often the case, people get all bent out of shape and try to make arguments based on their beliefs.

And as seen here, attempting to twist agreements and definitions to meet their beliefs, ignoring the actual facts.

In the case of WP, I defy anybody to actually say what my own personal belief is. Because I have not stated in in any way, shape, or form. I am only making statements based purely on International Law, with no interjection of my own opinion on their use.

And doctrine and choice of use by an individual state that does not violate International agreements is not a valid argument. The Dutchy of Grand Fenwick could pass a law forbidding it's military from using bullets, and require that they only use arrows. And to forbid tanks and armored personnel carriers and only to use knights on horseback. And they could then decide that they will use guns, in violation of their own laws. But that is in no way illegal Internationally.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I can you show you the evidence but I can't make you think. I give up...have it your way.
What evidence?

You have given opinions. You have yet to show where it is stated that WP is illegal.

It is the same kind of facetious argument that people use when they try to claim that Depleted Uranium is a "Nuclear - Radioactive Weapon". Or that CS is a "Chemical Weapon". You are making claims and opinions that are not backed up under International law.
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
17,568
Reaction score
10,381
Location
C17
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's a very bad kneejerk reaction that will come back to haunt us in the future.
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
19,046
Reaction score
2,056
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Adding thousands of additional troops is not pulling out, is there some reason you miss that fact?
Just like every other politician, Trump sometimes gives into political pressure...and almost never gives into dem political pressure.
Most recently, Trump has allowed American troops to stay in Syria due to political pressure and pressure from the Pentagon. I think you'll also find Trump bowed to political pressure from Israel and Jordan.

I also think you'll find your reason why troops are increasing in Afghanistan and Iraq due to Pentagon pressure and American political pressure.

Trump plans to completely pull out of Afghanistan by the 2020 election.Trump Wants to Pull U.S. Troops From Afghanistan Before 2020

But the NBC report alludes to some serious friction between the State Department and the Pentagon over the timing of the withdrawal. "It's tense," said one former official briefed on the debate:

Last December <December of 2018> Trump threatened not only to immediately withdraw all troops from Afghanistan but also to shut down the U.S. embassy in Kabul, complaining to aides that it is too large and expensive, according to officials. The president's threat to close the U.S. embassy — which has not been previously reported — so alarmed administration and military officials that they quickly offered him a plan to move up the timing of efforts to scale back the size of the embassy staff, officials said.


And, well, the Iraqi government wants American troops out of Iraq because the Iraqi government is allied with Iran...Which may be a reason why Trump is keeping American troops in Iraq...to thumb his nose at Iran.

Sometimes a president must 'go back' on his campaign wishes like troop reductions in foreign wars because of many reasons he hadn't foreseen when campaigning for office.
Trump wants to reduce American troops in foreign wars but political pressure and Pentagon pressure prevents this from happening at times.
Even Trump campaigned on listening to the military more when making military decisions but one must wonder if the military knows what it is doing in wars that just drag on endlessly and takes lives and countless treasure and seemingly has no end-game.
 
Last edited:

Rogue Valley

President-Elect Joseph R. Biden
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
56,003
Reaction score
40,494
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sometimes a president must 'go back' on his campaign wishes like troop reductions in foreign wars because of many reasons he hadn't foreseen when campaigning for office.
Trump is lying about it. He hasn't withdrawn any US troops from the ME. Even more are there now.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
41,397
Reaction score
12,078
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
But the NBC report alludes to some serious friction between the State Department and the Pentagon over the timing of the withdrawal. "It's tense," said one former official briefed on the debate:
And you believe the media?

ABC recently announce a slaughter in Syria, using video of military training in Kentucky.

The fake news never ceases to amaze me.
 

Rogue Valley

President-Elect Joseph R. Biden
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
56,003
Reaction score
40,494
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And you believe the media?

ABC recently announce a slaughter in Syria, using video of military training in Kentucky.

The fake news never ceases to amaze me.
Post the video or its link.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trump is lying about it. He hasn't withdrawn any US troops from the ME. Even more are there now.
Actually not. The number in the Middle East has been remarkably stable for years. Most of that is due to treaties with the host nations.

Kuwait has dropped from around 46k to the current 13k, as stated in our defense treaty with them. Qatar also remains pretty close to the same, from 11-13k. Once again because of defense treaties between the US and Qatar.

In Iraq, there were around 5,000 troops there in 2016. Today, there are around 5,200.
 
Top Bottom