USA army HAVE used chemical weapons in Iraq

So Glad

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

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

So Glad

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

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

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

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

Riamfada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hagar

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

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

So Glad wrote:

Chemicals such as white phospherous and napalm have been used.

Napalm and White Phosphorous are not chemical weapons.

tallus

Zebra3 wrote:

Yep, but I covered that in my point 2.

Ok we're getting in to semantics heh

Terry

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

Manic Moran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Squaddy

secret_squirrel wrote:

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

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

I didnt make it off topic :rolleyes:

So Glad

Squaddy wrote:

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 and he aprroved of this aspartame. 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.

Even though you have given no support to this, I wouldn't be surprised. The world in America's playground.

Exar Khun

So Glad wrote:

Even though you have given no support to this, I wouldn't be surprised. The world in America's playground.

Send this thread to the conspiraces forum. That 'Proof' video has been making the round for months now....

mloc

unfortuantely human nature leads us to conflict in some for or another at some stage or another. The world will always be fundamentally flawed and an unequal society for as long as human existance persists.

So you might as well just make the most of it. Fair play to the Americans.

Squaddy

mloc wrote:

unfortuantely human nature leads us to conflict in some for or another at some stage or another. The world will always be fundamentally flawed and an unequal society for as long as human existance persists.

So you might as well just make the most of it. Fair play to the Americans.

Nah nah. The world would be a far better place if this never happened. Is the world a better place now than when it was in the summer 2001?? I dont think so. The Iraqi and Afghanistan people will bring the war to America and there will be justice. The unborn children of Iraq and Afgahnistan will grow up hating america. Didnt we grow hating england?

Time Magazine

The economics makes me cry.

The price of oil has sky-rocketed since Iraq. If Bush is so greedy, why would he place his small oil interests over the economic climate of the economy he runs?

If Iraq started "trading in Euros" (misnomer) surely that would lower demand for the dollar, lower the price, make American exports cheaper and imports for Americans more expensive and thus fix the trade balance?

Oh no, there's something far more complex at work here; lies...

Dirk Gently

Squaddy wrote:

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 and he aprroved of this aspartame.
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.

I'm starting to hate seeing your name in threads. I would have thought you would be busy in Bebo land making useless quizzes and polls after your silly attempt to get people to introduce themselves on a thread in politics earlier. A thread where you said politics is all bullsh!t but if I had to choose I would be democratic. Democratic what? democratic conservative, democratic socialist, democratic Christian, democratic just about every ideology there is by the sound of your statement.

anyway, America created global warming? :rolleyes: No doubt they are major contributors but even if America was totally run on renewables I'm sure the rest of us would still be contributing to global warming. How did they create it exactly. Granted they don't seem to be doing much about it but I don't think it was a secret ploy dreamed up the Whitehouse. It is simply a result of the entire planet releasing too many harmful gases into the atmosphere. Not an American creation, a world wide problem which we are all responsible for creating. Its a greed problem, a social attitude problem and a world wide government problem (including America, but also eveyone else).

Aids? yes there are theories that it was a man made virus created by the CIA to control the gay population, but that is only one of many theories and you shouldn't really state it as fact. The truth is nobody really knows for sure how to pin point the original aids mutation and for anyone to stand up and say, I know, this is how it happened is wrong. Scientific study has a few theories such as human - monkey sexual acts but no definitive answer. Just because we don't know the full facts at this point in time doesn't mean we have to jump on the band wagon and accept the C.I.A. theory as fact because it appears to be a full answer and not a theory which doesn't have an answer yet.

As for the soft drinks, yes it is dangerous and yes Rumsfeld and his mates have a habit of approving things which they themselves profit from but to blame America is wrong. There is nothing stopping each individual country from banning such products. Take your argument to the world food safety council. Just because its allowed in America doesn't mean they conspired to make it impossible to ban in other countries.

Again your right about the blocking of electric energy but again it is companies with a vested interest in oil (petrol) who stop these developments. There is nothing to stop other countries researching electric energy except that the oil companies might lobby politicians and argue against it. Again not an American phenomenon but rather a rival industry trying to cut out competition for their products.

Again the cancer pill, what is to stop any researcher between 1924 and now in a country other than America coming up with a cure if there is one. If what you suggest is true then surely your problem is with pharmaceutical companies who wish to sell their products to cancer patients instead of a cure which would negate the need for patients to take their products. If there is a cure please pm me the formula cos I'm gonna need it soon the amount of cigs I've gone through writing this post.

Most of what you argue is not against America but against certain big companies blocking rival products. If this was all an American ploy then what stopped other countries developing a cure for cancer and developing electric technology. This is not Americas fault, it happens the world over. Its called capitalism. Profit profit profit.


Your rant sounds like an irrational hatred for all things American and you seem easily convinced that all the worlds problems are American conspiracies. Granted I'm not a big fan of American politics but I try to stick as close as I can to facts and patterns of behavior to justify my criticism. You have made no such attempt and have simply stated a lot of unproved theories as fact.

ISAW

easy_as_easy wrote:

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

It is illegal to use it as a weapon against ANY tartget!

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-...
The March 2005 edition of Field Artillery magazine, a U.S. Army publication,
reveals that the U.S. military did in fact use the incendiary weapon white
phosphorous in Fallujah, and not just for 'lighting' purposes, as officially
claimed.

"WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for
screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent
psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes
when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired "shake and bake"
missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them
out."

That was AGAINST the Law!

http://http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm...
ional-wpns_prot-iii.htm

Problems with link try http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/
and click on protocol III

Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1.. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population
as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by
incendiary weapons.
2.. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective
located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by
air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3.. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within
a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary
weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such
military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians
and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the
incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any
event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians
and damage to civilian objects.
4.. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the
object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are
used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military
objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful
killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great
suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or
transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a
protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully
depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial,
...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of
property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and
wantonly."

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John
8:32)

So Glad

clown bag wrote:

I'm starting to hate seeing your name in threads. I would have thought you would be busy in Bebo land making useless quizzes and polls after your silly attempt to get people to introduce themselves on a thread in politics e........................ of behavior to justify my criticism. You have made no such attempt and have simply stated a lot of unproved theories as fact.

The sad thing about America is that what the people high in office do always falls on their people. The hard working, honest people of America are controlled and hated because of them. America's name has been degraded. It was a promising land with lots to offer in terms of human happyness, think the cowboy era etc. It's a shame they have no voice bar the ones that put words in their mouths.

So Glad

ISAW wrote:

It is illegal to use it as a weapon against ANY tartget!

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-...
The March 2005 edition of Field Artillery magazine, a U.S. Army publication,
reveals that the U.S. military did in fact use the incendiary weapon white
phosphorous in Fallujah, and not just for 'lighting' purposes, as officially
claim............ement of a protected person, compelling a
protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully
depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial,
...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of
property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and
wantonly."

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John
8:32)

God, that is a beautiful post. The truth shall set you free. Think of who has been the bad guys all along? America has napalmed little innocent children in Iraq and Vietnam, women and men alike. They are the only country EVER to use a nuclear bomb on other humans. They are a voice of peace yet are the only country that ever start horrific wars for NO REASON bar their profit or to test out new weapons. America is disliked for a good reason people.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

It is illegal to use it as a weapon against ANY tartget!

it is also against the Us own regulations:

US Army and General Staff College Battle Book

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect3.htm

5-11 FIELD ARTILLERY AMMUNITION
...
(b) Projectiles
...
(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat
and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the
smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as
Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to
employ WP against personnel targets.

So Glad

ISAW wrote:

it is also against the Us own regulations:

US Army and General Staff College Battle Book

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect3.htm
(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat
and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the
smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as
Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to
employ WP against personnel targets.

Again, another important story that has been avoided by the media. This is global madness in my opinion. Maybe I'm being paranoid?

ISAW

So Glad wrote:

Again, another important story that has been avoided by the media. This is global madness in my opinion. Maybe I'm being paranoid?

Hey! I send them the copy. They dont print it. what am I to do?

So Glad

ISAW wrote:

Hey! I send them the copy. They dont print it. what am I to do?

Oh you did? Whom did you send it too?

ISAW

So Glad wrote:

Oh you did? Whom did you send it too?

dont know offhand. But I can tell you I wrote the above from the file date. On november 17 2005. I also sent it to people who did raise the issue in the public domain (and I would hope to be in the position to do so sometime soon). Would you canvass for the likes of me?

By the way the reason I dont know offhand is because I recently switched to Linux and frankly cant be bothered to reboot and search through archived emails to find out what organs it was sent to. I got it because it was posted somewhere eles on thenet so I could search in my Linux system but not know exactly who I sent it to.

So Glad

ISAW wrote:

dont know offhand. But I can tell you I wrote the above from the file date. On november 17 2005. I also sent it to people who did raise the issue in the public domain (and I would hope to be in the position to do so sometime soon). Would you canvass for the likes of me?

Well, personally, yes. Of course. I'm am what you may call a "hardliner" about these issues. But if you are reffering to news outlets and the sort I can understand your situation.

You see, when I open a paper these days, most of it's contents are fame and fortune, big brother, celebrities and snippets of news. We have no priorities regarding news. I actually read on one of those side articles tucked away into the side of the page and I was shocked as to why it was not important. It read " two die from bird flu". Ok, we have spent MONTHS blathering on about the risk of bird flu spreading to humans and it finally happens and noone cares?

Same as the war in Iraq (that is, contrary to popular belief, still raging). Everyone declares that it is the most well documented war ie. media coverage. The country was a big gladitorial ring for our viewing, they would have us believe. Only in fact certain news outlets were alloud cover what was happening let alone release it. Many journalists have had their cameras confiscated for recording the slaughtering of innocent women, childeren and men. Also, footage of illegal methods of tourture, bombings and war in general are well documented.

I just think we are really controlled by the media to believe Saddam Hussien is a satanistic war-demon but I have to think otherwise given the appalling methods carried out by the American army.

Anyways, back on topic, I would like to send these documents to places where it would attract attention. Any ideas? News stations, papers etc.

Dirk Gently

So Glad wrote:

God, that is a beautiful post. The truth shall set you free. Think of who has been the bad guys all along? America has napalmed little innocent children in Iraq and Vietnam, women and men alike. They are the only country EVER to use a nuclear bomb on other humans. They are a voice of peace yet are the only country that ever start horrific wars for NO REASON bar their profit or to test out new weapons. America is disliked for a good reason people.

Be careful to differentiate between

(A)I don't like America and they deserve to be hated by the world

(B)I don't like decisions made by certain American leaders on behalf of its citizens.

Attitude (A)
is really playing into the hands of people like in the Bush administration who can dismiss such arguments as irrational because most Americans will be wondering WTF they done wrong. Most of them are just like you and I and take offence to a statement which tars them with the same brush as their leaders actions. It just makes you look bad and your points lose credibility.
E.g. As Europeans are we responsible for Hitlers actions? Why not, he was European and so are we so we must be evil. This is illogical point of view just like it is illogical to say Americans deserve to be hated.

Attitude (B)
is more constructive and harder to dismiss as you are singling out the source of your disapproval and are not coming across as ill informed and irrational. Also helps if you put as much energy into criticising decision makers you think are wrong from other countries too. Makes you look less like you're trying to simplify the problem to "America is evil and I hate them".
E.G. the decision taken by the leaders of the U.S., Britain, Italy and Spain to send troops to Iraq despite a lack of public support in those countries and falsified intelligence was wrong. This is better than saying Americans are ***** for starting on Iraq.

Moriarty

Well it took longer than I expected for the same claims to resurface as 'fact' I must say.

Take a look at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054846746 for round one.

Manic Moran

Problems with link try http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ry/policy/int/
and click on protocol III

And which bit of that exactly was broken?

S1: Civilians were not made the object of attack. Insurgents were. Some civilians got hit unintentionally.
S2: Check. Artillery was used, not aircraft.
S3: Check. The US took measures to reduce civilian casualties. Basically announcing for some time in advance "Lads, we're about to have a bit of a war here, it is strongly recommended that you not stick around or you might get hurt." Local procedures for clearing fire remain not available to the public.
S4: Check, as not applicable.

it is also against the Us own regulations:

US Army and General Staff College Battle Book

Actually, no. The Battle Book is not a manual or regulation, it is a training aid which is not approved by the Dept of the Army or any organisation outside of Leavenworth. My guess is that someone creating the book just repeated an old wive's tale, similar to the .50 cal-on-troops prohibition that just won't die. I believe in the prior-quoted thread by Moriarity I posted the results of my search of the official US Army manuals on the issue, with negative results on any procedural prohibition on WP in the same manner as I found against nuclear or chemical agent rounds. (I had to go back a bit for those)

NTM

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

S1: Civilians were not made the object of attack. Insurgents were. Some civilians got hit unintentionally.

I remember reading quotes by the yanks that said anybody that didn't heed their calls to vacate the city before the attack would be considered a combatant

Manic Moran wrote:

The US took measures to reduce civilian casualties. Basically announcing for some time in advance "Lads, we're about to have a bit of a war here, it is strongly recommended that you not stick around or you might get hurt." Local procedures for clearing fire remain not available to the public.

That's a load of subjective rubbish.
For one, just because they called on civilians to vacate the city doesn't give them carte blanche.
Two, the Iraqi civilians have no reason to trust the Americans. The yanks have proved time and again they care little to nothing about Iraqi civilians; even preceeding the current war, going back during the sanctions the US would bomb Iraq in the so-called "no-fly zones" almost daily and protested when the UN would count the dead bodies.
A civilian in Fallajah that subsists on a daily struggle for the basics like food and water, whom also is exposed to their own propaganda, (not propaganda from your side Manic Moran.) Can hardly be expected to uproot their families and walk toward the American army now can they?
In fact, does anybody think this is actually reasonable?
The American's want to kill the rebels, so we citizens should just up and leave our homes for them.
It is not unreasonable to consider such an American tactic as part of a pyschological war against Iraq.
Ordering civilians to leave is more akin to an act of terrorism then some benevolent desire to minimize civilian casualites. After all "we don't do body counts" right?