USA army HAVE used chemical weapons in Iraq

So Glad · 27-05-2006 7:42pm #1

It has now be clarified that the American and British forces have used chemical weapons on civilians. Chemicals such as white phospherous and napalm have been used. Now....wasn't they whole point of going to Iraq to disarm them of chemical weapons? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Here is the a video (VERY graphic) of a collection of witnesses, news clips and house of commons representatives proving the use of chemical weapons.

I have no doubt you will find this absolutely sickening. And PLEASE don't move this to the conpiracy theories forum, as this is not a conspiracy.

stevenmu · 27-05-2006 7:44pm

Yes, but they aren't either nerve agents or 'weapons of mass destruction' which was the real point.

So Glad · 27-05-2006 7:48pm

stevenmu wrote:

Yes, but they aren't either nerve agents or 'weapons of mass destruction' which was the real point.

White phospherous burns when in contact with skin and when inhaled reacts with the moisture in your lungs and burns you from the inside out. Most were women and children and they were incinerated (with their clothes still on). WELL! At least they wern't CHEMICAL weapons! :rolleyes:

Oh, and these chemical weapons in Iraq that have never been found?

smemon · 27-05-2006 7:52pm

whats the big deal? they're allowed blow people to pieces with ak47s and b52 bombers but not allowed to use chemicals?

does it matter what they use? the fact is they're killing innocent people. enough said.

So Glad · 27-05-2006 7:56pm

smemon wrote:

whats the big deal? they're allowed blow people to pieces with ak47s and b52 bombers but not allowed to use chemicals?

does it matter what they use? the fact is they're killing innocent people. enough said.

I know. Nobody cares. Everybody has forgotten about this. As if Iraqis don't count. It's sick beyond words.

easy_as_easy · 27-05-2006 7:58pm

well yes, doesnt the geneva convention state that the use of chemical weapons is illegal?

Riamfada · 27-05-2006 8:00pm

easy_as_easy wrote:

well yes, doesnt the geneva convention state that the use of chemical weapons is illegal?

when do the americans care about anything other rules or organisations say? They are protecting our freedom from Evil Iraqi Invaders however.

tallus · 27-05-2006 8:05pm

smemon wrote:

whats the big deal? they're allowed blow people to pieces with ak47s and b52 bombers but not allowed to use chemicals?

does it matter what they use? the fact is they're killing innocent people. enough said.

does the use of chemicals contravene the geneva convention ?
Not sure myself

Oops apologies someone already said that mea culpa
I think Bill Hicks summed it up in the best possible way when he parodied GWB and Tony Blair talking Blair to Bush: "So how did you know they had weapons of mass destruction?"
Bush replies: "we kept the reciepts"
Funny but paradoxically sad.

homah_7ft · 27-05-2006 8:06pm

According to the Tenth Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the CWC in the Hague.

Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy.

bonkey · 27-05-2006 8:10pm

So Glad wrote:

Here is the a video (VERY graphic) of a collection of witnesses, news clips and house of commons representatives proving the use of chemical weapons.

I have no doubt you will find this absolutely sickening. And PLEASE don't move this to the conpiracy theories forum, as this is not a conspiracy.

My guess is that your continued demonstration of an inability to distinguish proof from what is merely evidence suggesting something is what is most likely to get this moved.

TBH, the use of white phosphorus was hotly discussed after Fallujah (or one of the other "re-re-liberated" towns) because there was a clear admission that they had been used, but some degree of confusion as to how they had been used. Its not news, nor are the claims that it was used as a targetted weapon and/or indiscriminately.

easy_as_easy wrote:

doesnt the geneva convention state that the use of chemical weapons is illegal?

Not in quite such simplistic terms. As I said, the question over white phosphorus was how it was used, not whether. The substance itself is not explicitly banned, however it would almost definitely be considered a war-crime were the US proven to have used it as a targetted weapon.

This is where I come back to my opening point. So_Glad will no doubt insist that such use is exactly what his video proves. Unless this video has found evidence that hasn't surfaced in previous months (years, at this point) then I can already determine that it is at best presenting a one-sided or biased view of events.

The US may be guilty of using chemical weapons in breach of the Geneva Convention. There is evidence to suggest as much. However, its almost certainly not strong enough to say for certain that it was so, and its utterly unlikely that the US will ever be brought to task for it.

jc

easy_as_easy · 27-05-2006 8:12pm

tallus wrote:

does the use of chemicals contravene the geneva convention ?
Not sure myself Oops apologies someone already said that mea culpa
I think Bill Hicks summed it up in the best possible way when he parodied GWB and Tony Blair talking Blair to Bush: "So how did you know they had weapons of mass destruction?"
Bush replies: "we kept the reciepts"
Funny but paradoxically sad.

good quote but cant have been Bill Hicks, he died feb 1994, blair came into power in july 1994....

tallus · 27-05-2006 8:13pm

easy_as_easy wrote:

good quote but cant have been Bill Hicks, he died feb 1994, blair came into power in july 1994....

Ok transplant whoever was in power :P
When I saw the quote first it was in a cartoon with bush and blair

Zebra3 · 27-05-2006 8:14pm

Two reasons and two reasons only why the Americans went into Iraq.

1) To overthrow a dissident CIA agent (just like they did when they invaded Panama).

2) To secure oil supplies.

tallus · 27-05-2006 8:16pm

Wasn't saddam going to start dealing in Euro too ? I read somewhere that was also a reason.

Hagar · 27-05-2006 8:16pm

homah_7ft wrote:

According to the Tenth Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the CWC in the Hague.

Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy.

I heard nuclear explosions get quite warm so they're ok too I suppose.:mad:

Zebra3 · 27-05-2006 8:18pm

tallus wrote:

Wasn't saddam going to start dealing in Euro too ? I read somewhere that was also a reason.

Yep, but I covered that in my point 2.

Peteee · 27-05-2006 8:18pm

So Glad wrote:

Chemicals such as white phospherous and napalm have been used.

Napalm and White Phosphorous are not chemical weapons.

tallus · 27-05-2006 8:20pm

Zebra3 wrote:

Yep, but I covered that in my point 2.

Ok we're getting in to semantics heh

Terry · 27-05-2006 8:26pm

they already had and so have iran. guess who's next.

Manic Moran · 27-05-2006 8:34pm

The manual states that WP is a "Conventional Military Chemical" as opposed to a "Chemical Agent" (common term, "chemical weapon"), and its vapour/smoke properties are on the same level as 'irritants' such as vehicle exahust. Its more (in)famous effects are dealt with under "incendiaries."

The only prohibitions are that they cannot be air-dropped on cities, and, like any weapon, cannot specifically target civilians.

NTM

homah_7ft · 27-05-2006 8:35pm

Hagar wrote:

I heard nuclear explosions get quite warm so they're ok too I suppose.:mad:

I was merely pointing out a fact.

WellyJ · 27-05-2006 8:55pm

Whats with the sudden ANTI-USA fad that seems to be sweeping the boards?

Don't you people realise that we dont really care about any of this?

stevenmu · 27-05-2006 9:10pm

So Glad wrote:

White phospherous burns when in contact with skin and when inhaled reacts with the moisture in your lungs and burns you from the inside out. Most were women and children and they were incinerated (with their clothes still on). WELL! At least they wern't CHEMICAL weapons! :rolleyes:

Oh, and these chemical weapons in Iraq that have never been found?

I watched some of that clip and I hope that's not what you base you're whole argument on. It contradicts official positions on what WP does, and common sense. If WP acted in the way that the video claims it does, it would be totally unsuitable for the situations that the military employs it in. The video claims that the gas released burns right through people, not being blocked by clothes or gas masks and causes irreversible damage. The usage of WP that they got in most trouble for at the time was in using WP to 'clear' buildings. This involved filling the building with smoke from WP devices to drive out any insurgents inside, and then soliders enter the building. According to the video they too would be burnt alive, clearly they were not. WP smoke is also used for screening purposes, it would be militarily unwise to use a screen which destroys the very troops you're trying to protect with it.

Looking at some of the images in the video of the supposed 'victims' of WP, their burns look nothing like the distinctive burns casued by contact with WP. They appear to me to be no different to burns caused by regular means.

Finally the claim that napalm was used is patently untrue. Napalm was removed from the US military inventory in 2001. Also it is not a gas as they (and many others) claim.

So Glad · 27-05-2006 10:00pm

WellyJ wrote:

Whats with the sudden ANTI-USA fad that seems to be sweeping the boards?

Don't you people realise that we dont really care about any of this?

So you speak out for everyone here? You say nobody cares for the butchering of inoccent civilians? Is that your view about human life?

I could go on about why people are begining to dislike the USA but I will instead ask you what GOOD has the country done? Besides give us materialism, greed and vain, self-orientated television programs.

Dirk Gently · 27-05-2006 10:10pm

So Glad wrote:

what GOOD has the country done? Besides give us materialism, greed and vain, self-orientated television programs.

Johnny Cash and Elvis and the Simpsons. Can't think of anything else positive right now. I'll get back to you.

So Glad · 27-05-2006 10:14pm

clown bag wrote:

Johnny Cash and Elvis and the Simpsons. Can't think of anything else positive right now. I'll get back to you.

Actually. I'll have to include Jimi Hendrix. But all the good things that came out of America are usually old and entertainment based. I was talking politically.

Ciaran500 · 27-05-2006 10:30pm

So Glad wrote:

Besides give us materialism, greed and vain

Because none of that ever exsisted before America :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Lets keep it on topic.

Squaddy · 28-05-2006 12:15am

They also approved Aspartame to be used in soft drinks. Aspartame is very dangerous, two spoonfuls of that can be very lethal. And it was approved in our soft drinks! (such as coke etc!) Aspartame can casue brain cancer and Ms and a load more cant think of right now. In 1983 Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle who creates aspartame and he aprroved this. The next time you are drinking coke think about it, whats in it.
They also created AIDs, yes i know this is a bit extreme but they did! During the 70s during the race for chemical and biological weapons they tested their weapons in South Africa and look at that country now!!
They killed the cure for cancer. There has been a cure for cancer since 1924 but the guy that invented this simple little tablet as easy as making vitamin tablets was arrested and killed. There is still a practise in mexico that have a 80% success rate.
ANd whatever happened to Nikola Tesla - he created this device enabling us to have free electricity and cars that run on electricity. THats where the name 'Tesla' comes from.
They also created global warming.

Squaddy · 28-05-2006 12:29am

tallus wrote:

Wasn't saddam going to start dealing in Euro too ? I read somewhere that was also a reason.

America has the highest debt in the world its around 9 trillion. They rely on oil being sold in dollars to keep the dollar and their economy going. Iraq started selling their oil in euros so america responded by saying they had nukes and invaded the counrty.

Last year Iran and Venuzuela announced they where going to sell their oil in Euros so we started getting this bullsh*t that Iran are making nukes and they are going to nuke the world etc etc.
America sent battleships down to Venuzuela to try and give a hint of what might happen.
A month ago Iran have gone back to sellling oil in dollars thats why it has kind of cooled down now about the nukes. But dont rule them out attacking Iran in the future.

elivsvonchiaing · 28-05-2006 12:30am

tallus wrote:

Ok transplant whoever was in power :P
When I saw the quote first it was in a cartoon with bush and blair

The actual quote was relating to George Snr. The cartoonist was clearly a fan of Bill Hicks and used artistic licence/gave historians of the future potentially something to argue about.

secret_squirrel · 28-05-2006 12:30am

Squaddy wrote:

....Ranting.....

Off topic, totally paranoid and lacking in evidence to support your claims.

I suggest you take your delusions back to the Conspiracies forum.

USA army HAVE used chemical weapons in Iraq

Comments