It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: US Used White Phosphorus in Iraq

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
Fair game huh?


There is a huge difference, Nerdling, between targeting civilians and having civilians get in the way. Even you should be able to understand that. And I never said that civilians were fair game. Don't put words in my mouth.

And by the way, the pictures posted by Valhall are not casualties of US forces, but of the South Vietnamese Air Force, for those who are so quick to blame the US for everything.




About noon the field commander of the Vietnamese troops outside Trang Bang asked for additional air support from South Vietnam Airforce [sic] units based at Bien Hoa, some 15 miles away.

digitaljournalist.org...





posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm sorry that sometimes civilians and even babies get in the way, but that's the way it is. It's not right, but no one has found a way to totally prevent such things from happening.


[edit on 2005/11/16 by GradyPhilpott]


Oh no?? How about this DONT GO THERE.... we dont need to be there, we never did.... just dont do it, dont go there! Get out.... THATS how we prevent it



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
All I can say is that there are some who are better off not thinking about war. There are no humane weapons. Napalm and WP have their uses and it is far better that 10,000 enemy die than even one friendly. I'm sorry that sometimes civilians and even babies get in the way, but that's the way it is. It's not right, but no one has found a way to totally prevent such things from happening.

Oh, and Valhall, I've been there.

[edit on 2005/11/16 by GradyPhilpott]




Fair game huh?



Enniskillen massacre 1987: 11 people dead after IRA bomb explodes at Remembrance Day parade

paid for with money from NORAID


fair game huh?

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Harlequin]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Oh no?? How about this DONT GO THERE.... we dont need to be there, we never did.... just dont do it, dont go there! Get out.... THATS how we prevent it


This is a forum for rational discussion. If you don't think we have a job to do in Iraq, then nothing about the operation will please you. Those of us who happen to live in a real world of responsibility understand what the current war is all about and its ultimate necessity. Those who don't are doomed to live their lives in perpetual hysteria.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
When the use of a weapon like this becomes acceptable then you put EVERYTHING on the table. Everything is fair game. Do you really want to waive all standards and "rules of war"?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Nerdling
Fair game huh?


There is a huge difference, Nerdling, between targeting civilians and having civilians get in the way. Even you should be able to understand that.


Hmmm.... the US knew there were civilians there, and the US knew that those civilians would get in the way.... so now, again, im sorry whats the difference between targeting civilians and them getting in the way?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
All I can say is that there are some who are better off not thinking about war. There are no humane weapons. Napalm and WP have their uses and it is far better that 10,000 enemy die than even one friendly. I'm sorry that sometimes civilians and even babies get in the way, but that's the way it is. It's not right, but no one has found a way to totally prevent such things from happening.

Oh, and Valhall, I've been there.

[edit on 2005/11/16 by GradyPhilpott]


Grady,

There's no "way" to get in if you don't use weapons that indiscriminately cause blanket suffering.

And you know what - i don't think you've been exactly where you needed to be if you can say that intentionally - and it IS intentionally - causing extreme human suffering in civilian populations by the use of this type weapon is okie dokie just prevent one of "US" from dying.

Let's review the current extremely shameful position we now find ourselves in as U.S. citizens.

We invaded another country based on an intentional lie that they had WMD's that were a threat to their own citizens and citizens of other nations.

We have concentration camps with people who have now been held for 4 years and more without any charges.

We've had idiots in uniforms torturing prisoners.

And then we used banned weapons on the civilians we claimed we were going to save from the weapons that didn't exist.

Yeah - I really feel like waving a flag right now. Problem is - it's a white one I'd like to wave because I'd really like to surrender to somebody that can rescue me from the unending shame I'm getting to live with.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Oh no?? How about this DONT GO THERE.... we dont need to be there, we never did.... just dont do it, dont go there! Get out.... THATS how we prevent it


This is a forum for rational discussion. If you don't think we have a job to do in Iraq, then nothing about the operation will please you. Those of us who happen to live in a real world of responsibility understand what the current war is all about and its ultimate necessity. Those who don't are doomed to live their lives in perpetual hysteria.


I wouldnt confuse being emphatic with hysteria....as far as being doomed?? Hahahahaha yes, im so doomed by my humanity its almost sickening.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
When the use of a weapon like this becomes acceptable then you put EVERYTHING on the table. Everything is fair game. Do you really want to waive all standards and "rules of war"?


No. Since when is using white phosphorous against the rules of war? This is the same tactic used by the left in Vietnam. It's a "bloody shirt." Get a grip and, by all means, stay out of the armed forces.

[edit on 2005/11/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

This is the same tactic used by the left in Vietnam. It's a "bloody shirt."
[edit on 2005/11/16 by GradyPhilpott]

And, as we all know, Vietnam is certainly the pinnacle by which to judge the model of how all wars should be fought. Very good point.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I have just sat and read through all the comments made by each poster. Some excellent remarks made (wish i had started the thread) for and against the use of White phosphorus.

Some of you may know that my son returned from Iraq not too long ago. I have asked him what they actually use White phosphorus for. He basically told me what had been written here among all the replies.

I then asked him if he had ever been taught to use it as a form of weapon.
He replied with 'NO' but, if that was all you had, and had your back to the wall, then he did say he would use it as such. He was talking about him surviving, and not indiscriminate use of it. Fair point in a combat situation if you ask me. (Bias quote not intentional, just making a point).

Basically, its wrong to use it as weapon instead of your rifle/gun, but when you have neither of these, and its you against them, and all you have is WP, would you not use it to save your own life?
I certainly would. Capture and possible beheading don't strike me as an ideal alternative.

Just my thoughts and some perspective of someones experience who has been there.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smokersroom
Using gasses that stick to people and burn is not the way
to make friends in a war....


Who the heck said anything about wanting to make
'friends' with terrorist insurgents? We want to KILL THEM,
not make friends with them.

If this perfectly legal weapon strikes fear into the b*******
over there then great! Use it. If it kills them them great!
Use it.

The terrorists have only themselves to blame for being
killing in this manner. If they would act civilized and accept
the democratically elected Iraqi government, and if they
would stop murdering Iraqis, then we wouldn't even be
there.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
When the use of a weapon like this becomes acceptable then you put EVERYTHING on the table. Everything is fair game. Do you really want to waive all standards and "rules of war"?


The terrorists and insurgents already waived all standards and
rules of war. They have never abided by the Geneva Convention.
THEY attacked America first. THEY attack the Iraqi civilians.
THEY cut off heads of female aid workers and blow up children.
So to say that because America used a perfectly legal weapon,
that will make the terrorists somehow start to not play fair ...
Sorry Nerdling .. you are a bit late on that. They NEVER did
'play fair'. (and America has not broken any laws by using the
weapons it has)



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
And you know what - i don't think you've been exactly where you needed to be if you can say that intentionally - and it IS intentionally - causing extreme human suffering in civilian populations by the use of this type weapon is okie dokie just prevent one of "US" from dying.



Your putting words in my mouth and, basically, your view of the war is completely incorrect. We did not invade Iraq based on an intentional lie. We invaded Iraq based on the best intelligence available and a solid decade of Saddam's playing cat and mouse with UN inspectors. I never justified "causing extreme human suffering in civilian populations." I'd like for you to find where I said that.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
We did not invade Iraq based on an intentional lie.

You are absolutely correct Grady.
But it's the new mantra of those on the left
who have already started the ramp up for
the democrats run for the White House for 2008.
I guess they must figure if they repeat that
lie enough, some will believe it.


A short video worth watching on the Democrats' dishonesty over Iraq:
www.gop.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Hmmm.... the US knew there were civilians there, and the US knew that those civilians would get in the way.... so now, again, im sorry whats the difference between targeting civilians and them getting in the way?


You're completely irrational, so this is my last response to you. I don't know all the details of the Fallujah operation, but it seems clear that the enemy used civilians as shields against the attack. That, in itself, is against the rules of warfare. Also, the attack on Fallujah was one of the most wide publicized operations in the history of warfare. Civilians were given ample time to flee. And one more thing. You are completely ignoring the wholesale massacre of civilians in Fallujah carried out by the enemy, so if you were a rational person you would be raising hell about that instead of carrying on about a non-issue such as white phosphorus.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
You are absolutely correct Grady.
But it's the new mantra of those on the left
who have already started the ramp up for
the democrats run for the White House for 2008.


There is only one problem for the Democrats. There are countless hours of video tape of them all telling everyone what a threat Saddam was and how many WMDs he had, so when election time comes, Republicans need only to start the tape arollin'.


Poor Democrats. They're like cats with their tails caught in a crack.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Nerdling
When the use of a weapon like this becomes acceptable then you put EVERYTHING on the table. Everything is fair game. Do you really want to waive all standards and "rules of war"?


The terrorists and insurgents already waived all standards and
rules of war. They have never abided by the Geneva Convention.
THEY attacked America first. THEY attack the Iraqi civilians.
THEY cut off heads of female aid workers and blow up children.
So to say that because America used a perfectly legal weapon,
that will make the terrorists somehow start to not play fair ...
Sorry Nerdling .. you are a bit late on that. They NEVER did
'play fair'. (and America has not broken any laws by using the
weapons it has)




Right. And you're better than them now how...?

When you're not fighting for survival the only real thing that will hold a country together is the belief that they are in the right. And you are most definitely not in the right.

It is amusing to watch Team AMERICA! here justifying the use of chemical weapons in a war zone. Isn't one of the main charges against Saddam Hussein his use of Chemical weapons in the extermination of Kurds. But thats okay now because it was an internal affair in which he didn't break any Iraqi laws. Right Team?

And whilst we rest on semantics and legalese may I remind you that Saddam Hussein was the elected President of Iraq. Sure, you'd be tortured for voting for someone else but in the legalese he was still elected.

See what happens when you play with legalese? Everything descends into "I'll call you back about that".



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling

It is amusing to watch Team AMERICA! here justifying the use of chemical weapons in a war zone. Isn't one of the main charges against Saddam Hussein his use of Chemical weapons in the extermination of Kurds. But thats okay now because it was an internal affair in which he didn't break any Iraqi laws. Right Team?



You just can't keep the facts straight, can you Nerdling. Willie Peter is not a chemical weapon in the sense that you continue to use that term. Do you have an orgainic issue?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Hmmm.... the US knew there were civilians there, and the US knew that those civilians would get in the way.... so now, again, im sorry whats the difference between targeting civilians and them getting in the way?


You're completely irrational, so this is my last response to you. I don't know all the details of the Fallujah operation, but it seems clear that the enemy used civilians as shields against the attack. That, in itself, is against the rules of warfare. Also, the attack on Fallujah was one of the most wide publicized operations in the history of warfare. Civilians were given ample time to flee. And one more thing. You are completely ignoring the wholesale massacre of civilians in Fallujah carried out by the enemy, so if you were a rational person you would be raising hell about that instead of carrying on about a non-issue such as white phosphorus.



Its a very sad state of today`s society that you are ignoring the truth , that WMD`s have been used by the USA in Iraq , but as you say its a `non issue` and the world should ignore it and concentrate on `human shields` instead.

By WMD`s i mean the use of chemical weapons , not only phosphorus (either red , white or black) but other weapons.

As i said , by this time next year , ths US forces will have killed more people using chemical agents than hussein did. And look who is actually on trial for `crimes against humanity`

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Harlequin]




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join