It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


America And The New Iraq.

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 07:33 AM
It seems that the war on terror is taking another chilling turn for the worse.

From the BBC in November:

From the BBC in December:

Add to this the recent emergence of the use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq by the US:

With the history of abuse in Iraq under the present occupation:

All of this adds up to a completley unsatisfactory state of affairs. The peoples of the US, UK and other countries have been lied to from the outset of this terrible chapter in our collective history.

There are currently 20,000 private security contractors opperating in Iraq - mostly paid for by the US government - who have turned the country into a frontier of lawless abandon.
The vast majority of the country is under the control of the insurgents who are at least keep peace in some areas. The problem with this being they hail from rival Sunni and Shiite factions.
The country is sliding towards a civil war as soon as western forces withdraw.

Iran must be quaking in their boots to think that the western world is probably thinking of turning their beloved country into a bombed out waste land. Their citizens being plucked from their beds at night to be hauled of to eastern europe for some late night terror.

[edit on 2-12-2005 by Expositor]

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 07:50 AM
This really is a tragic situation. I still just cannot believe the headlines I have seen in the last few years, what a damn shame.

I find this 'war' nothing but despicable.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 08:26 AM
The credibility of this post goes right out the window with "Add to this the recent emergence of the use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq by the US: "

WP IS NOT A CHEMICAL WEAPON! You call it that for shock value. It is in fact spin and propaganda. If you call WP a chemical weapon, then even a bullet could be considered a chemical wepaon.

Not only did the military admit they were using it, but they were giving stories to the media where they used it. Every SWAT team in the US uses it!

Everything else you posted is speculation at the moment. These are incidents that are being investigated. In the past, soldiers found abusing detainees have been prosecuted!

The picture you are trying to paint is pure fantasy. I won’t deny that war is horrible and that bad things always happen. However there’s a difference between the US and spun us you are trying to sell. The real US seek out and deal with these problems, openly.

[edit on 2-12-2005 by Dronetek]

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Dronetek
WP IS NOT A CHEMICAL WEAPON! You call it that for shock value. It is in fact spin and propaganda.

I am not the only one to call WP a chemical weapon, the following extract is taken from a formally classified Pentagon document



(full document can be found at :

The Pentagon is trying to downplay the situation be refering to WP as “incendiary muntions”. So it appears that WP IS a chemical weapon when used by enemies of the US.

Legal arguments and political spin aside - WP inflicts horrific injuries and causes clothing and human flesh to melt, regardless of attempts to wash it off with water. To use this weapon in an area know to be inhabited by civillians is an indication of the Army's desire only for territorial gain.

Army Specialist Jeff Englehart, has gone on record as saying he "saw the burned bodies of women and children," some melted "right down to the bone."

Originally posted by Dronetek
The picture you are trying to paint is pure fantasy.

I am not trying to paint a picture of any kind, it is a fact that large swathes of the country are under the control of Shia militia, as this is the only way the US can maintain control especially in the South of Iraq.

The failure of American foreign policy in Iraq is a fact. I only wonder how long the legacy of this blunder will hang round the neck of the West.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:27 AM
You are saying that since the US spun WP as a chemical weapon, its ok for you to spin it that way? Because WP is not a chemical weapon.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Dronetek
You are saying that since the US spun WP as a chemical weapon, its ok for you to spin it that way? Because WP is not a chemical weapon.

The terms and conditions on the use of, and what consitutes, chemical weapons are defined in the:


The definitions and criteria show:

Definitions and Criteria
For the purposes of this Convention:

1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

2. "Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)

As the components of WP appear in the index of chemicals in this document WP is clearly - in terms of international agreement - a chemical weapon.

A bullet is not a chemical weapon because it causes damage through impact and ballistics not through the effect of chemicals.

Do not miss the point, the use of WP is not the important issue here. The main reason this incident is such a major problem is that the US military is using political propaganda to maniplulate opinion. Something Saddam's regime was also very good at.

Edited to correct grammer.

[edit on 2-12-2005 by Expositor]

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:17 AM
It seems like certain Americans have trouble accepting (as far as I can make out) that the rest of the world saw the use of WP, when being used specifically as a weapon (and not as was the total lie originally as just mere "illumination"), as a chemical weapon attack in Iraq.

If it was a chemical weapon when the US was referring to it as such a wee while back why should anyone wish to contradict that view that now?
Particularly as under international agree definitions it so obviously is.

The spin (to limit the damage this 'episode' has done.....on top of the disaster that Iraq plainly is anyway) is happening now.

Tp pretend that the use of a chemical as a weapon (as clearly defined under long-standing international law......which the USA has shamefully refused to sign up to) is not a 'chemical weapon' is just laughably tragic.

In fact ever since WW2 white phosphorus has been labelled a chemical weapon (as indeed has napalm).

The British strenuously argued for the US not to use napalm on D-day and from then on fearing it would provoke a (in Britain's eyes) justified German chemical response.
(see page 125; 'A Higher Form of Killing', Harris & Paxman).

'We' were very lucky it didn't (especially given the particular effectiveness of such weapons when used on relatively small pockets/beach-heads).

[edit on 2-12-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:47 AM
Technically WP is not a chemical weapon as it is “incendiary munitions” since it burns. Iraq is by far not the first time the US has used WP. Hell, they used it all the time in Vietnam. It is a basic military munition and I can bet any amount of money that other coalition forces in Iraq also use it.

But I guess if the US uses it then we are just bad people and no matter what we do, it is wrong in a lot of people's eyes.

I can see it now, we pull our troops out, all of them, then people will bitch and complain that we started something and did not finish. It is a lose lose situation for the US in a lot of people's eyes. Damn shame too.

top topics


log in