OH GOD THE LIONS

[Campy]

Are you referring to the White Phosphorous story?  I'd like to know your thoughts on if it is BS or not, because on the surface it sounds really !@#$ing bad if we really did willy pete downtown Fallujah.

 

I can not believe we would do this, there has to be more to the story.

505656[/snapback]

Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday that while white phosphorous is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.

AP article linky linky

 

That right there is a war crime boys and girls.

[Wacka]

Probably a stupid reporter finally found out that tracer bullets consist of Phosphorus which ignites by the friction with the air. (I found out about that on Mythbusters last night.)

And what is the source in the AP article that we used them against civilians?- Italian Communists staging a sit-in.

[Campy]

And what is the source in the AP article that we used them against civilians?- Italian Communists staging a sit-in.

505665[/snapback]

As the post above yours cleary indicates, it's from Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman.

 

Stupid reporter? Italian Communists? Thanks for playing.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

AP article linky linky

 

That right there is a war crime boys and girls.

505660[/snapback]

 

As opposed to dropping bombs on them or shooting them.

 

WP is horrible, it causes terrible and very painful burns (though it does not poison the internal organs, as you stated earlier)...but it's no more "criminal" than any other sh-- that goes on in battle.

[KD in CA]

I just think that the founding fathers would disagree.  Remember, the whole reason they began the rebellion was because of "right or wrong," not "us or them."  The whole point of the Constitution used to be to define right and wrong and to ensure that the US government was right more than wrong. 

 

Using torture and justifying it by the actions of the terrorists (the sawing the heads off comment above), the torturers themselves become something pretty darn close to being terrorists.  There's not much of a difference between the two actions.  I don't think that torturing somebody is any more humane than just lopping his head off.

505655[/snapback]

 

 

No, I think the founding fathers would be more concerned with the future of the nation rather than with the treatment of a handful of enemies.

 

And I think we need to define 'torture' a little better. The reason people point out the 'sawing the heads off' example is to show how absurd the comparison is between us and them. They saw heads off innocent people while our media wrings its hands over the "humiliation" of AQ detainees. If the SS shows up at my door and the worst they do is humiliate me at the hands some Liddy England type, I think I'll be ok.

[SilverNRed]

AP article linky linky

 

That right there is a war crime boys and girls.

505660[/snapback]

Would it have been better if we'd used more conventional weapons to completely level the entire city before going in?

 

I know if I am ever killed, I hope it is by a very common, off-the-shelf weapon and not something like WP.

 

EDIT:

From the article...

"WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition," the authors wrote. "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 (high explosive)" munitions.

 

"We fired `shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

 

If the WP prevented the coalition forces from using a lot more high explosives that could have caused many more civilian deaths, isn't that a good thing? I mean, again, we could have just carpet bombed the whole city and avoided WP altogether.

[Campy]

As opposed to dropping bombs on them or shooting them.

 

WP is horrible, it causes terrible and very painful burns (though it does not poison the internal organs, as you stated earlier)

I read an article that claimed that it does, but I'll concede that point with no argument

 

...but it's no more "criminal" than any other sh-- that goes on in battle.

505679[/snapback]

Dropping bombs and shooting people is consistent with accepted (and lawful) means of waging war. Using chemical weapons is a violation of international law. Sorry, but its use certainly is "criminal," ie, it violates the law, making it a crime.

[KD in CA]

The fact that they were under-manned and underequipped is just a case-in-point on the incompetence of the president and his cronies.

505611[/snapback]

 

 

AP article linky linky

That right there is a war crime boys and girls.

505660[/snapback]

 

 

 

So, you are upset that our soliders were ill equiped for battle, and then when they use their most effective tools, you start crying "war crimes!"

 

I'm sure you'll also tell us it's Bush's fault for the increase in body bags after they switch to all morally sound weapons.

 

 

USA BAD!!!

[RI Bills Fan]

As opposed to dropping bombs on them or shooting them.

 

WP is horrible, it causes terrible and very painful burns (though it does not poison the internal organs, as you stated earlier)...

505679[/snapback]

 

Wrong, as usual. Willie Peter Read the Health Effects Section.

 

I love how all the people who never did a single minute of military service are okay with all the things which they'll allow to happen to other people.

[Campy]

So, you are upset that our soliders were ill equiped for battle, and then when they use their most effective tools, you start crying "war crimes!"

 

I'm sure you'll also tell us it's Bush's fault for the increase in body bags after they switch to all morally sound weapons.

USA BAD!!!

505709[/snapback]

Nice straw man you built there, it's just too bad that straw men don't hold up very well.

 

IMO, they were underquipped by not having enough body armor or armored vehicles.

 

As far as WP is concerned, it is hardly the "most effective" tool, a nuclear warhead would have been. And the use of either in that situation is a violation of federal and international law. Don't be pissy with me because you just learned that the US is guilty of committing war crimes.

[KD in CA]

As far as WP is concerned, it is hardly the "most effective" tool, a nuclear warhead would have been.  And the use of either in that situation is a violation of federal and international law.  Don't be pissy with me because you just learned that the US is guilty of committing war crimes.

505717[/snapback]

 

 

You're the only one getting pissy over it. Unlike you, I'm more worried about winning the war than I am in going on witch hunts against my countrymen.

[Campy]

You're the only one getting pissy over it.  Unlike you, I'm more worried about winning the war than I am in going on witch hunts against my countrymen.

505719[/snapback]

I guess the whole "nation not of men, but of laws" thingy is lost on you, eh?

 

Hint: It's one of the things that make the United States' government the envy of the world.

[SilverNRed]

I love how all the people who never did a single minute of military service are okay with all the things which they'll allow to happen to other people. 

505713[/snapback]

I love how all the people who never die a single minute of military service are okwy with telling the guys on the front lines being shot at what they can and cannot do.

[KD in CA]

I guess the whole "nation not of men, but of laws" thingy is lost on you, eh? 

 

Hint: It's one of the things that make the United States' government the envy of the world.

505725[/snapback]

 

 

Gee, thanks John.

 

I'm sure the founders would have bowed down to the orders of the UN in this situation. They were a pretty passive group.

[Campy]

I love how all the people who never die a single minute of military service are okwy with telling the guys on the front lines being shot at what they can and cannot do.

505735[/snapback]

So I gather you don't like that the Constitution requires that treaties and agreements must be entered into and agreed upon by Congress and not the military?

 

I don't make the laws, nor do I sign the treaties. Your beef should be with the US Constitution, not me.

[Campy]

Gee, thanks John.

 

I'm sure the founders would have bowed down to the orders of the UN in this situation.  They were a pretty passive group. 

505742[/snapback]

Whether they would or wouldn't have is moot (although I suspect you're right, "foreign entanglements" and all). They crafted the Constitution, and the Constitution requires that all treaties agreed to and approved by Congress become the law of the land.

 

The wisdom of the US' participation in the UN is a topic for a different thread - a thread which you're welcome to start, I'd be interested to see where everyone stands on that. But we are signatories to the UN, and as such, we have a constitutional obligation to abide by the UN's edicts and rules. I never said that I liked that, only that it is the law.

[SilverNRed]

So I gather you don't like that the Constitution requires that treaties and agreements must be entered into and agreed upon by Congress and not the military?

 

I don't make the laws, nor do I sign the treaties.  Your beef should be with the US Constitution, not me.

505744[/snapback]

All I'm saying is that no one should be in a rush to label the guys actually doing the fighting and trying to survive as "war criminals."

 

If they decide to use WP instead of carpet bombing, I'm in no position to say "Choice A was wrong and choice B was right." And I could care less about international law on the matter.

[RI Bills Fan]

I love how all the people who never die a single minute of military service are okwy with telling the guys on the front lines being shot at what they can and cannot do.

505735[/snapback]

 

1. spellcheck works!

 

2. TMCM (SS/SW) USN (Ret)

 

3. Look up the words DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY, try to understand what it is that differentiates the American Serviceman Doing His or Her Duty from a Terrorist. When you figure that out, maybe your opinion will change.

[Campy]

All I'm saying is that no one should be in a rush to label the guys actually doing the fighting and trying to survive as "war criminals."

 

If they decide to use WP instead of carpet bombing, I'm in no position to say "Choice A was wrong and choice B was right." 

I hear you. I'd love it if no more of our guys (and gals) were hurt or killed over there. I'd have loved the mission to be as cut and dry as we were told it would be - liberators welcomed with flowers and all - but unfortunately, that's just not the reality we face, so we must deal with that reality.

 

And I could care less about international law on the matter.

505755[/snapback]

Understood. I, on the other hand, place a lot of value in the Constitution. And it's the Constitution that makes that international law US law.

 

As I said above, the wisdom of the treaties is open for debate. But they've been agreed to, and I'm not anywhere close to wanting to trash the US Constitution because I may disagree with treaties that Congress has approved.

[erynthered]

  I'd have loved the mission to be as cut and dry as we were told it would be - liberators welcomed with flowers and all -

 

.

505780[/snapback]

 

 

Who told you that? I don't remember that. Would the media possibly have said that? And you believed that? Naaaa.