Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » United States using chemical weapons in Iraq?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #179467 is a reply to message #179463] |
Wed, 16 November 2005 19:33   |
 |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Wed, 16 November 2005 21:19 |
If it's not such a big deal, then why the hype with the military stressing that it "has not been used as a weapon", and alligations of an unknown number of iraqi women and children dying from phosphorus burns during the hostilities?
|
Good question, I really want to know how a news organization can get away with writing something like this:
| Quote: |
An unknown number of Iraqi women and children died of phosphorus burns during the hostilities, Italian documentary makers covering the battle for Fallujah have claimed.
|
This means just about anything someone wants it to mean. It could mean no one was even hurt, or it could mean hundreds or thousands were murdered. It doesn't even state if anyone has actual evidence this happened. Taken at face value, it says no one knows if anyone was hurt. It's a useless statement, but seems to be used to hype up a story that doesn't deserve the bytes wasted to store it. Reporters should be reporting facts, not making up new ways to say nothing.
This kind of crap drives me crazy.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #179488 is a reply to message #179455] |
Thu, 17 November 2005 00:17 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
White Phosphorous works as a weapon because of simple combustion. WP+Oxygen=fire. Chunks of WP, when they strike a person, do have a nasty tendency to burn straight through the skin and any other flammable matter between it and the ground, but that's all it does- it burns. The end result is quite similar to what would happen if you used a cutting torch on, say, your arm or leg.
Yes, it's nasty stuff, but it does not affect the human body in the same way that, say, a nerve or blister agent would. Chemical weapons generally have far more specific and targeted effects on the human body- a nerve agent, such as sarin for example, attacks the central nervous system, disrupting and shutting down signals sent from the brain to various body parts (incapacitating, then killing the target person). Blister agents, such as mustard agent, adversely accect surface tissues which they are exposed to- which is why it is such a bad thing to inhale them, as they will completely wreck your lungs in very short order.
Phosphorous is a simple incendiary device. It burns. It burns, and continues to burn very hot for an extended period, while giving off a bright, intense light- which is why WP and RP have been used in signal and illumination flares for centuries (...and the rockets' red glare...). It is not a chemical weapon any more than gunpowder, C4, napalm, or TNT. Chemical weapons have specific, targeted effects on specific bodily functions and tissues; WP just burns anything that gets in its way. Phosphorous ordinance is not specifically designed to destroy human flesh; it just happens to do that pretty damn well in addition to everything else it is good for (lighting things on fire, illuminating an area, alerting a rescue chopper to the location of a downed pilot, etc).
WP is not a chemical weapon, it is conventional, and this is stupid- next thing you know, people will be bitching about bullets being chemical weapons because they might have lead in them. Just another case of somebody trying to demonize the US by attacking some weapon that your average person really doesn't have a clue about the inner workings of.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #179698 is a reply to message #179529] |
Fri, 18 November 2005 15:12 |
runewood
Messages: 138
Registered: October 2005
Location: SE Michigan
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
The worst thing to ever happen to America is the media. They are buyest, lieing jerks. If its not Fox its News Week. You were right, the media only shows negitive news on the war. This sells. Like at the Spanish American War. If you know your history you will know wtf im talkign about. The people who are most for this war are the soldiers on the ground. Why? because they see the good they do every day, the people they help. Where is the media there?
The UN doesnt consider them Chemical Weapons. So there ya go.
"Don't try to be a great man, just be a man. Let history make it's own judgments."
"Maybe its not the destination that matters, but the journey."
"How many people does it take before its wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million?"
"Im not here to tell you how it is going to end, Im here to tell you how it is going to begin."
"Its not the end or even the beggining of the end, mearly the end of the beggining."
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end."
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #179713 is a reply to message #179529] |
Fri, 18 November 2005 17:21 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Javaxcx wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 12:55 |
I don't think the point is as much that it was being used as it was REPORTED that it wasn't being used offensively, which turned out to be false.
|
And whose fault is that, the U.S. government's, or the media's?
This is just conjecture, but the reason the military didn't tell the public it was using white phosphorous probably is because the public isn't widely educated about the use of white phosphorous as a conventional weapon, so it would be easy for the media to spin the story, making it look like the United States is using chemical weapons. In response, Congress restricts the military from using white phosphorous, thus depriving the military from a useful conventional weapon.
Plus, the public doesn't need to know everything the military does and everything it uses to fight our enemies. Should we be afraid we aren't giving the enemy a fair fight? Of course not. This is war; the military exists to win wars and kill our enemies. The more we tie the military's hands, the harder it is for it to win our wars.
And before the Geneva Convention comes up, wasn't it created in the first place with the idea that both sides would adhere to its rules so both sides' POWs would be treated humanely? Even if the terrorists were addressed in some article of the Convention, they have already violated many provisions of it, from torturing prisoners to beheading hostages. They're not following the same rules of war that we are, so it is useless to say that we'll only make them more mad if we break a few GC rules. They won't stop beheading hostages even if we let all the detainees in Guantanamo Bay go. They're out to win this war at any cost, and they'll fight dirty if they have to. Our refusal to meet them likewise is only a weakness that will seriously hinder our ability to win.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #180104 is a reply to message #179973] |
Tue, 22 November 2005 12:34 |
runewood
Messages: 138
Registered: October 2005
Location: SE Michigan
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
We dont use lead bullets, we use mettal bullets.
"Don't try to be a great man, just be a man. Let history make it's own judgments."
"Maybe its not the destination that matters, but the journey."
"How many people does it take before its wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million?"
"Im not here to tell you how it is going to end, Im here to tell you how it is going to begin."
"Its not the end or even the beggining of the end, mearly the end of the beggining."
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: United States using chemical weapons in Iraq? [message #180976 is a reply to message #179458] |
Thu, 01 December 2005 11:00 |
 |
glyde51
Messages: 1827
Registered: August 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Wed, 16 November 2005 21:05 |
Are restaurants using a dangerous chemical to season their foods? This "seasoning" uses a mixture of sodium, a highly explosive metal, and chlorine, a green toxic gas, to create this agent they claim adds flavor to food. Should this be allowed? Your thoughts?
|
Just to take this topic up with my limited knowledge of chemistry.
First off, sodium does start to smolder and catch on fire when exposed to air. It explodes in water. Chlorine is also highly toxic, used in mustard gas.
Now, here's the problem with this sarcastic post, if you didn't know, NaCl is a compound that has reacted. The Alkali metals have one "extra" electron, giving it another shell. The Halogen, Chlorine, is "missing" an electron. However, putting these two together results in the sodium attempting to get rid of the electron, but the chlorine attempting to keep it. Now, since they can't just break apart like that, they get stuck together, and they both kind of have their way, like the noble gases, and aren't as volitile unless seperated back to being just sodium and chlorine. Now, I have little to no knowledge on this, so I'll just go along with this until someone explains this to me more.
Anyways, salt = not dangerous.
White phosphorus = dangerous.
Phosphorus is something extremly dangerous in civilian enviroments. You can't just say "BLAME CARBOMBS" or "I don't care it kills terrorists and the terrorists kill innocents." Firing white phosphorus into a civilian area results in civilian deaths, and since white phosphorus is a powder it can be whipped around the streets of Fallujah.
War isn't what everyone seems to think it is. From the people I've talked to, they think White Phosphorus is just like any other weapon. It isn't. Bullets and bombs explode but can be protected against. White phosporus, however, just burns. According to a US Soldier who fought in Fallujah (Source: Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre) white phosphorus will burn through gas masks. It's not easy to protect yourself from something in a typical Iraq city, open windows, etc. Fallujah wasn't just some hostile target, it had civilians in it. I read the CBC Opinion section, and I saw people that said "Get rid of terrorist's property" and even "When the islamic terrorists stop blowing up innocent Iraqi's at markets and schools perhaps then I'll care if the terrorists get incinerated with WP."
They're missing the point: Not everyone in Fallujah is a terrorist. Civilians and terrorists both died because of the use of this weapon. Maybe you don't care, because you care about your soldiers more than Iraq's citizens. We'll never know the true story, because with embedded journalism, the military can show you the good things, but not the bad things. If anyone knows anything about the Highway of Death, where the US opened fire on a highway of escaping civilians and military personell, then you'll know what I mean. The news showed the tanks and fighters, but not the civilian cars, the dead civilians.
There's also speculation that the Mk-77 napalm bomb was used.
If I made any mistakes with my FACTS, not my opinions, please correct me.
No. Seriously. No.
[Updated on: Thu, 01 December 2005 11:01] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 28 10:05:16 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01425 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
Damn chemical warfare.
