us planes unleash 40,000 pounds of bombs, page 15
Pages: <<  12    13    14    15  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 23-1-2008 @ 01:04 PM by BlueRaja
reply to post by noangels


I presume this is the part of the article you're referring to-

"In a comprehensive written account of the military operation at Fallujah, three US soldiers who participated said WP shells were used against insurgents taking cover in trenches. Writing in the March-April edition of Field Artillery, the magazine of the US Field Artillery based in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, which is readily available on the internet, the three artillery men said: "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions ... and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against insurgents in trench lines and spider holes ... We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents using WP to flush them out and high explosive shells (HE) to take them out."

Did you also read this part of the article?-

"The use of incendiary weapons such as WP and napalm against civilian targets - though not military targets - is banned by international treaty."

or

"Some have claimed the use of WP contravenes the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention which bans the use of any "toxic chemical" weapons which causes "death, harm or temporary incapacitation to humans or animals through their chemical action on life processes".

However, Peter Kaiser, a spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which enforces the convention, said the convention permitted the use of such weapons for "military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". He said the burns caused by WP were thermic rather than chemical and as such not prohibited by the treaty."

or-

"The RAI film said civilians were also victims of the use of WP and reported claims by a campaigner from Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, that many victims had large burns. The report claimed that the clothes on some victims appeared to be intact even though their bodies were badly burned.

Critics of the RAI film - including the Pentagon - say such a claim undermines the likelihood that WP was responsible for the injuries since WP would have also burned their clothes. This opinion is supported by a leading military expert. John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.org, said of WP: "If it hits your clothes it will burn your clothes and if it hits your skin it will just keep on burning."


reply posted on 23-1-2008 @ 01:07 PM by earthman4
reply to post by BlueRaja


Dude, it is about stealing the oil, all the other stuff is a cover up.


reply posted on 23-1-2008 @ 01:18 PM by BlueRaja
reply to post by noangels


So you're not gonna refute the points in the article that don't suit your objectives? So as a warmongerer, all the peace loving pub patrons would resort to violence to silence my speech eh?


reply posted on 23-1-2008 @ 01:27 PM by BlueRaja
reply to post by earthman4


Why is my gas twice as expensive as before, if the oil is being stolen? Oh, we're stealing the oil, to keep the price high- right? How much oil would the Iraqis be pumping if the US hadn't gone in and repaired their infrastructure?


reply posted on 23-1-2008 @ 02:12 PM by noangels
reply to post by BlueRaja


en.wikipedia.org...

That was not a threat,I do like to see you twist it into something you can get your teeth into.

Keep wriggling and spinning,your only hurting yourself with your bare faced lies about about WP being only used on Terrorists(or as you lot call them bad guys!lol)
The Britsish army wont even use it on the enemy,as many other decent countries wouldnt either.
You killers used it on a city full of familes,young and old in a country you invaded under the lie of WMD.You did not liberate them,you enslaved them,stole their oil and stole their money
You deserve a big helping of humble pie


reply posted on 23-1-2008 @ 02:49 PM by BlueRaja
Originally posted by noangels
reply to post by BlueRaja


en.wikipedia.org...

That was not a threat,I do like to see you twist it into something you can get your teeth into.

Keep wriggling and spinning,your only hurting yourself with your bare faced lies about about WP being only used on Terrorists(or as you lot call them bad guys!lol)
The Britsish army wont even use it on the enemy,as many other decent countries wouldnt either.
You killers used it on a city full of familes,young and old in a country you invaded under the lie of WMD.You did not liberate them,you enslaved them,stole their oil and stole their money
You deserve a big helping of humble pie


The story you quoted even admitted that there was no evidence of what you're claiming. All it alluded to at the end was combatants should use a higher standard than what laws call for. As for the population of Fallujah- your story even mentioned how the 300,000 residents had left town. There were no large civilian casualty figures in Fallujah. How do I know this you ask. I worked with the folks who had to go out and police up the bodies and materiel, for intel analysis, and then later on with the Civil Affairs folks setting things up for the return of the populace. I also worked closely with Combat Camera, who took pictures of everything, with PAO who had to do press releases, etc.... There were thousands of media folks running around too, with cameras either embedded or in the aftermath.


reply posted on 23-1-2008 @ 03:27 PM by BlueRaja
reply to post by Johnmike


I'm not claiming that we are stealing it. I was responding to a claim that we are.


reply posted on 23-1-2008 @ 03:30 PM by earthman4
Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by earthman4


Why is my gas twice as expensive as before, if the oil is being stolen? Oh, we're stealing the oil, to keep the price high- right? How much oil would the Iraqis be pumping if the US hadn't gone in and repaired their infrastructure?


This is a long term plan. Iraq would not pull the oil out of the ground, this made big oil very angry. I overheard the plan 20 years ago. Don't you wonder why the US won't go and overthrow any regimes that don't have oil? The infrastructure was not repaired, it was damaged. Ask any Iraqi. I think the truth hurts me more than it hurts you. I would love to be patriotic but I got the real story straight from the oilmen/politicians.


reply posted on 28-1-2008 @ 07:04 AM by BlueRaja
reply to post by earthman4


Explain how it's in a oil companies interest to have their cost of business go up. In economics 101, where things like profit margins, break even points, etc... are learned, it is apparent that a business' profits are maximized when their costs are low(not high). It would be like arguing that a furniture company gets excited when the price of wood goes up, so they can charge the customer more. If oil were still $20/barrel, but gas was $3/ gallon, then I'd think there was some tomfoolery going on.


reply posted on 28-1-2008 @ 09:27 AM by Lilitu
Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by musselwhite


Why should I show concerned about insurgents getting blown up? I understand your feelings for insurgents' lives, but you need to get over it.


Yes the human beings we are bombing are only civilians. Get over it!



reply posted on 28-1-2008 @ 09:43 AM by BlueRaja
reply to post by Lilitu


I think the point being made was that the concern should be given to the innocents inadvertantly affected, not the insurgents. The object in war isn't to not kill your enemies. It is to destroy your enemy's ability to continue fighting, by attacking his forces/equipment, his supply chain/logistical support, bases of operation, and anything else that enables them to continue, including morale and the will to fight.
Pages: <<  12    13    14    15  >>    ^^TOP^^