Use of Napalm & Chemical weapons in Iraq

[YoJimbO]

This is about the US's use of Napalm & Chemical weapons during the Iraq war, paticularly in Fallujah.

WARNING (by the way it's very graphic, if you're young or sensitive to war images, don't click)

http://www.muchosucko.com/video-fall...nmassacre.html

---------------
EDIT - Added resource, UK's BBC News - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm
---------------

Tell me again, what was the reason they went in? Nuclear & Chemical weapons was it? Bloody hypocracy... This video gives evidence for and illustrates the use of chemical weapons during the war, notably Phosphorus, & it's effects on victims - "insurgent" or not...

Bending the rules to suit yourself makes you just as evil.

[Beckwith]

Phosphorus and napalm are incediary devices that have a blast radius similar to conventional weapons, they arent a WMD which is what we actually went in to try and stop, *

* Disclaimer - I dont support the War or believe the reasons for it were valid, im stating the US policy, and playing devils advocate

[YoJimbO]

Originally Posted by Beckwith

Phosphorus and napalm are incediary devices that have a blast radius similar to conventional weapons, they arent a WMD which is what we actually went in to try and stop, *

My point was not that they're WMDs, but chemical weapons, and non-specific ones at that, indiscriminately taking lives without the conscious decision of a bullet.

I know you're not stating your view Beckwith, just explaining why it pisses me off, take a look at the vid, women, kids, it's just a slaughter. And yes, it's got a conventional blast radius, but what does that matter when you just douse the city in the stuff?

[Beckwith]

a city that was supposed to be evacuated, they had what 3 weeks to evacuated? yes its a hideous way to take a life, in fact now that i think about it im suprised the geneva convention still alows those things considering they have stricter rules governing the use of other things that are far less hideos or disgusting

if you feel it should be used petition the international authorities in Geneva and ask them to stop the use of it, im certain if it wasnt allowed we wouldnt do it

[JoeB]

"The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally banned chemical weapons."

Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle325560.ece

[Tychandrus]

Notice how they tend to refrain from showing American soldiers being shot. It breeds less of an attatchment for them.

[Beckwith]

calling Phosphorus a chemical weapon is like calling a daisy cutter a nuclear bomb

it isnt a gas, it doesnt spread like a gas its an INCENDIARY chemical its blast radius is the same as many conventional munitions

id like to see what international law currently lists it as outlawed considering its fairly common use

if it is indeed band then i agree it shouldnt be used, i dont think it should be used even if it is allowed because it is hideous i however dont have convrete knowledge of any of this nor do i have any knowledge of the circumstances of how and why it was used

[YoJimbO]

Originally Posted by Tychandrus

Notice how they tend to refrain from showing American soldiers being shot. It breeds less of an attatchment for them.

I noticed that too, and from all the footage I've seen of Americans actually getting shot, they usually get up & hide. Not sure if I've seen any footage of an American soldier being killed - Apart from roadside bombs that is, there are loads...

[Enforcer1975]

Originally Posted by Beckwith

a city that was supposed to be evacuated, they had what 3 weeks to evacuated? yes its a hideous way to take a life, in fact now that i think about it im suprised the geneva convention still alows those things considering they have stricter rules governing the use of other things that are far less hideos or disgusting

if you feel it should be used petition the international authorities in Geneva and ask them to stop the use of it, im certain if it wasnt allowed we wouldnt do it

Does the enemy the USA fights care about Geneva?

War is not nice or fair. But an enemy not fighting the way it is supposed doesn't deserve better. And for those wo didn't leave a battlezone, it's their own fault, there is always a place to go to and they often have enough time. As well as the bloodthirsty reporters ( or let's say vultures ) running in the middle of a gunfight complaining when getting hit or even get killed. They don't need to be there yet they do, and therefor everyone who doesn't have business there should stay out.

I sick of this morale jabbering. There are simply no rules in war, the only thing you do is do everything to survive , POINT!

[YoJimbO]

Originally Posted by Enforcer1975

Does the enemy the USA fights care about Geneva?

War is not nice or fair. But an enemy not fighting the way it is supposed doesn't deserve better.

I can see where you're coming from. However going by the "if he does it, I'll do it" way of thinking, it truly makes you no more "moral" than the enemy. You are not only there to "kick his ass", but to change the way of life for the people of the country, and by having that sort of mind-frame, you're setting a very bad example. The US is a rich country, a 1st World, a Super Power - who have apparently gone in to liberate the people of the country, good, but they should definately not be going in thinking "But an enemy not fighting the way it is supposed doesn't deserve better."

If you want to build a "civilised" country, I don't believe that pissing it's people off like this is really the best way of going around it.