Topic: White Phosphorus
started by: Liberal
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 16 2005,6:07 pm
| Quote |
WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials say white phosphorus was used as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November, but deny an Italian television news report that it was used against civilians. Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday that while white phosphorus is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants. White phosphorus is a colorless-to-yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military ignites once it is exposed to oxygen, producing such heat that it bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. It can cause painful burn injuries to exposed human flesh... ...Venable said white phosphorus shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory. < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10064711 > |
Just because an international treaty hasn't specifically listed WP as a chemical weapon doesn't mean it isn't by definition a chemical weapon. I sure hope the international community doesn't impose trade sanctions and demand that we allow them to inspect our weapon stockpiles.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 16 2005,6:11 pm
Liberal if we were to label Willie Pete as a Chemical weapon then we would have to label CS/Teargas one as well. WP has been used for many years and nobody has ever taken issue with it.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 16 2005,6:12 pm
| Quote |
| Just because an international treaty hasn't specifically listed WP as a chemical weapon doesn't mean it isn't by definition a chemical weapon |
It's a stretch to call it "chemical weapon"--so is napalm, and for that matter, GUNPOWDER is made up of "chemicals"--I haven't seen it in nature!
The reality--there aren't many "good" weapons--they are all designed to kill or incapacitate.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 16 2005,6:15 pm
That's because we didn't use it as a weapon. When you bomb someone with a chemical that burns them to the bone what would you call it?
Posted by The Game on Nov. 16 2005,6:19 pm
A quick end to a threat against our servicemen is what I would call it.
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 16 2005,6:25 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Nov. 16 2005,6:15pm) |
| When you bomb someone with a chemical that burns them to the bone what would you call it? |
Payback.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 16 2005,6:26 pm
Liberal I have never made it a point to bring up your service time but what would you do if WP was used in a battle you were involved in? Would you be thinking the same way? I don't know and I am not making light of your service time but I know for me I would be grateful that it did the job and perhaps saved a few lives on our side as well.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 16 2005,6:52 pm
From the MSNBC article | Quote |
| Venable said white phosphorus shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory. |
Obviously, we have had the stuff around for a while, if it is in artillery shells--not like it is "high-tech" or newly developed. It was used in WW I and WW II. Link: < http://72.14.203.104/custom?....e=UTF-8 >
I noticed in the article that the only people that were protesting is the Italian Communists.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 16 2005,7:04 pm
| Quote |
From the MSNBC article Quote Venable said white phosphorus shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory. Doesn't sound like a chemical weapon to me--any more than tear gas, napalm, or gunpowder is. |
I supplied the same quote, what's your point? You'd have to be a complete pinhead not to see the difference between using a WP round to light up the sky and using a WP round as a weapon.
| Quote |
Liberal I have never made it a point to bring up your service time but what would you do if WP was used in a battle you were involved in? |
If I witnessed WP shells used as a weapon I would go to the Provost Marshall and the Inspector General with the information.
| Quote |
A quick end to a threat against our servicemen is what I would call it. |
A nuclear bomb would really put a quick end to them, and I'll bet some nerve gas or mustard gas would do a better job than WP. Do you remember why we're there?
| Quote |
Payback. |
What are you paying back Iraq for? Maybe you haven't heard the news but Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9-11.
| Quote |
The reality--there aren't many "good" weapons--they are all designed to kill or incapacitate. |
Is any weapon good if it's used by the righteous Christians to kill Muslims?
It really doesn't matter what the Nascar fans want to call this, the rest of the world will call it exactly what it is, a chemical that our military is using as a weapon.
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 16 2005,7:09 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Nov. 16 2005,7:04pm) |
| What are you paying back Iraq for? Maybe you haven't heard the news but Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9-11. |
Yeah, but it's sure teeming with bad guys trying to blow our guys up, whatever the reason we went there.
Are you suggesting that our troops take some new-age flowerpot 'high road' stance?
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 16 2005,7:30 pm
| Quote |
Yeah, but it's sure teeming with bad guys trying to blow our guys up, whatever the reason we went there. |
So are you suggesting we should pay them back for defending their country after we invaded it over faulty/manufactured intelligence?
| Quote |
Are you suggesting that our troops take some new-age flowerpot 'high road' stance? |
Taking the high road
I'd say if you go to war with a country because you suspect they have chemical weapons you certainly shouldn't be using chemicals as a weapon against them. And WP is a chemical round that was never intended to be used as a weapon, it was never designed as a one or classified as one so it sure as hell shouldn't be used as one.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 16 2005,7:46 pm
| Quote |
| I supplied the same quote, what's your point? You'd have to be a complete pinhead not to see the [b]difference between using a WP round to light up the sky and using a WP round as a weapon.</b> |
| Quote |
| If I witnessed WP shells used as a weapon I would go to the Provost Marshall and the Inspector General with the information. |
| Quote |
| It really doesn't matter what the Nascar fans want to call this, the rest of the world will call it exactly what it is, a chemical that our military is using as a weapon. |
| Quote |
| And WP is a chemical round that was never intended to be used as a weapon, it was never designed as a one or classified as one so it sure as hell shouldn't be used as one. |
More liberal (and Liberal) revisionism. The liberal "party line" is that the bad guys (that would be US, in their minds) are using chemical weapons (WP). That WP was "never intended to be used as a weapon".
I asked you before--HOW DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT STUFF GOT IN ARTILLERY SHELLS--except to be used as a weapon? I supplied you with a link to battle action on the use of WP shells in WW II--I don't think even the GERMANS protested that one! It was used in WW I. It isn't proscribed by any treaty that the U.S. is a signatory to. As the MSNBC article says, "it is a standard weapon in field artillery". It has been used for nearly a hundred years.
But in the liberal mind, this is an opportunity to blame the U.S. --to make news--to paint us as the bad guys--to once again blame Bush--to make it seem as though this is something new.</b>
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 16 2005,8:35 pm
| Quote |
More liberal (and Liberal) revisionism. The liberal "party line" is that the bad guys (that would be US, in their minds) are using chemical weapons (WP). That WP was "never intended to be used as a weapon". I asked you before--HOW DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT STUFF GOT IN ARTILLERY SHELLS--except to be used as a weapon? |
White Phosphorous artillery shells are not intended to be used as a weapon anymore than artillery shells that smoke are intended to be used as a weapon. No matter how you try to spin this we're using a chemical that is intended to be used to mark targets or light up the night and we are using it as a chemical weapon against enemy combatants.
Isn't that one of the reasons we're fighting this war?
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 16 2005,9:23 pm
< Who is your Source? >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.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 16 2005,9:57 pm
http://confederateyankee.mu.nuThat's quite the source you've got there.
But here's a video and an interview from Peter Kaiser where he explains how WP is a chemical weapon when used as a chemical weapon.
< Video and interview from Geo's source. Warning the video shows the aftermath of WP being used on enemy combatants >
In the interview Kaiser essentially explains that the use of WP is prohibited by the CWC when it is used as a weapon that is not:
| Quote |
[…]used within the context of a military application which does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. […] If [...] the caustic properties [are] intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited [under the CWC] Any chemical that is used against humans or animals that causes harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons. So it does not matter which substance we’re talking about. As long as the purpose is to cause harm through toxic properties, that is prohibited behavior [under the CWC]. |
OK for the slow ones, if I buy an axe handle with the intention of using it as an axe handle then it's a tool. But if I use that same axe handle to bash in someone's skull for $16 and a pizza then the government is going to tell me that my axe handle isn't a tool, but rather a weapon. So if you use the chemical WP as a tool then it's legal, but if you use that chemical against personnel as a weapon then it becomes a chemical weapon.
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 16 2005,11:41 pm
Liberal, your logic is so flawed on this one. Quit while you're only moderately behind. WP does not fit the U.S. Army's definition of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weaponry.
Let's apply your logic to another military scenario: A scout platoon member uses his binoculars to identify insurgents. He uses his map to determine the exact coordinates of the insurgents. Then he uses his radio to call for a 155mm artillery barrage on the insurgents, who, as a result, are blown to smithereens. Does that make his binoculars, map and radio weapons?
Of course it does. All things in the military arsenal have a common goal: to continue the fight and win.
If you're in a situation where you have to decide between losing a squad and preventing that by hitting the enemy with some WP rounds, which would you choose?
Oh wait - you've never been in the service, have you?
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 17 2005,12:00 am
And for the record, I agree with the notion that we're in Iraq for totally BS reasons. That said, we cannot simply leave. Saddam in power provided a balance of terror that prevented the sort of insurgent hotbed that his regime's removal provided.Our flawed reasons for being there should not be confused for a reason not to kill insurgents. We are not killing Iraqis who are, as you put it, "defending their country," we are killing Islamic extremists who want to kill all things non-Islam, namely, us. The insurgents kill more Iraqi civilians and other non-combatants than we do, and you full well know it.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 17 2005,8:58 am
| Quote |
| But if I use that same axe handle to bash in someone's skull for $16 and a pizza then the government is going to tell me that my axe handle isn't a tool, but rather a weapon. |
Great Sarcasm! For those that weren't on the Forum at the time, he is referring to a robbery of a pizza driver in town. The driver was lured to an address, then assaulted. The perps got little or nothing for a sentence.In this case--I guess the government (the judiciary) DIDN'T consider it a weapon--the perps got no jail time, the victim got multiple trips to Mayo.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 17 2005,9:12 am
From the referenced video and text | Quote |
| Any chemical that is used against humans or animals that causes harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons. So it does not matter which substance we’re talking about. As long as the purpose is to cause harm through toxic properties, that is prohibited behavior [under the CWC]. |
WP kills by burning, not toxic properties. A TOXIN is a poison--i.e. gas
| Quote |
| tox·in ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tksn) n. A poisonous substance, especially a protein, that is produced by living cells or organisms and is capable of causing disease when introduced into the body tissues but is often also capable of inducing neutralizing antibodies or antitoxins. |
Poison gas, poisoning the water supply--prohibited. Killing by burning--whether by flamethrower, air-dropped napalm, or WP--legal. Not a good way to die--but then, what is?
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 17 2005,9:25 am
| Quote |
Let's apply your logic to another military scenario: A scout platoon member uses his binoculars to identify insurgents. He uses his map to determine the exact coordinates of the insurgents. Then he uses his radio to call for a 155mm artillery barrage on the insurgents, who, as a result, are blown to smithereens. Does that make his binoculars, map and radio weapons? |
If you bash someones skull in with a set of binoculars then they become a weapon but your argument is pointless. We went into Iraq because they supposedly had chemical weapons and when we get there we use a chemical round that's designed to mark targets as an offensive weapon. Which of course makes that a chemical weapon. What would you call dropping a 155mm shell full of chemicals on an enemy combatant?
Remind me again why the great crusader King George sent our soldiers into that rat hole of a country. Wasn't it something about chemical weapons? If there was no problem with using WP rounds as a weapon then why did the Army deny it until it was proven that they were lying?
| Quote |
If you're in a situation where you have to decide between losing a squad and preventing that by hitting the enemy with some WP rounds, which would you choose? Oh wait - you've never been in the service, have you? |
I'd choose option number 3 and call for fire.
I really doubt you'd want to compare your National Guard service record to my regular Army service record.
| Quote |
WP kills by burning, not toxic properties. A TOXIN is a poison--i.e. gas |
A blister agents burns you and blister agents are considered chemical weapons so your argument doesn't hold water.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 17 2005,9:38 am
Good point. I had to look up blistering agent. The things you learn on this Forum. 
| Quote |
| BLISTERING AGENT n : a toxic war gas with sulfide based compounds that raises blisters and attacks the eyes and lungs; there is no known antidote [syn: mustard gas, mustard agent, dichloroethyl sulfide, sulfur mustard] Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University |
Blistering agent is TOXIC and a GAS (therefore illegal)--mustard gas, etc.
WP is NOT toxic--therefore, legal.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 17 2005,10:16 am
From the CDC website.| Quote |
What are lewisite and mustard-lewisite? Lewisite is an oily, colorless liquid with an odor like geraniums. Mustard-Lewisite Mixture is a liquid with a garlic-like odor. Mustard-Lewisite is a mixture of Lewisite and a sulfur mustard known as HD. < http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfactsd1.html > |
Mustard gas is a liquid that reacts to O2 just like WP, so your argument is even weaker than it was before. It was a nice try though.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 17 2005,10:53 am
I watched the video and the rounds exploded in air and none were directly shot at troops. what fell to the earth was providing a smoke screen for the advancing troops on an enemy position. This is a standard night time attack proceedure. Anyone who has been in the infantry in combat would agree.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 17 2005,1:56 pm
| Quote |
| Mustard gas is a liquid that reacts to O2 just like WP, so your argument is even weaker than it was before. It was a nice try though |
No, TOXINS are banned, burning agents are not.
You keep "stretching" like that--and you'll have arms like an orangutang!
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 17 2005,2:36 pm
You're really not that bright are you? You are the one claiming blister agent wasn't a liquid, when I supply proof that mustard gas (a blister agent) starts as a liquid the same as WP you try to twist the facts.| Quote |
Blistering agent is TOXIC and a GAS (therefore illegal)--mustard gas, etc. |
WP is Toxic and a GAS also so what's the difference?
And you know last I heard battery acid isn't a banned chemical weapon so why don't we just dump battery acid on the enemy combatants? That certainly wouldn't be a chemical attack since battery acid isn't listed anywhere as a chemical weapon.
Geo, I thought you said you didn't read our posts anymore? Try reading the following real slow. The Army has admitted that they lied last year and have changed their story now and admit to using WP shells as a weapon. Maybe you should ask yourself why the US Army lied in the first place? If using WP as a weapon isn't a problem then there would be no reason to lie.
| Quote |
You keep "stretching" like that--and you'll have arms like an orangutang! |
Nice spelling
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 17 2005,3:10 pm
| Quote |
| You are the one claiming blister agent wasn't a liquid |
| Quote |
| BLISTERING AGENT n : a toxic war gas with sulfide based compounds that raises blisters and attacks the eyes and lungs; there is no known antidote [syn: mustard gas, mustard agent, dichloroethyl sulfide, sulfur mustard] Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University |
From Wikipedia
| Quote |
| Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty to which the US is a signatory. However, there is a debate on whether white phosphorus is a chemical weapon and thus outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The spokesman for that organization, Peter Kaiser, stated that white phosphorus was not against the convention if it was used as an obscurant, but "If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons." Strictly speaking, however, since white phosphorus's primary effects are not actually due to its toxicity or causticity, but its ignition in the presence of oxygen, many believe it has more in common with incendiary weapons instead. [4] The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians. [5] However, the protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effect is secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed Protocol III. US Military protocol restricts but does not absolutely prohibit use of white phosphorus in civilian areas. |
The article goes on to address the history of WP as a WEAPON--in WW I, WW II, Korea.
Your reply to Geo
| Quote |
| Maybe you should ask yourself why the US Army lied in the first place? |
| Quote |
| The United States State Department had at first officially denied allegations of white phosphorus use in Iraq, possibly confusing white phosphorus with magnesium rounds used for battlefield illumination: |
Would the military lie be anything like the double flip-flop in Able Danger--"we can't find anybody"/"here they are"/"they corroborate the story"/"but we won't let them testify"?
From the Casablanca French school of military deniability--SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I SAY!
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 17 2005,3:14 pm
Well since battery acid isn't listed as a chemical weapon why can't we drop battery acid on them? Using your argument it's not a weapon, it's a tool (you know... kind of like how you're a tool for the GOP)
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 17 2005,3:49 pm
| Quote |
| Geo, I thought you said you didn't read our posts anymore? |
Ah but this topic I have considerable knowledge of as I was a forward observer and called in many fire missions from artillery and aircraft.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 17 2005,4:21 pm
| Quote |
| kind of like how you're a tool for the GOP) |
| Quote |
| Well since battery acid isn't listed as a chemical weapon why can't we drop battery acid on them? |
That's the whole point--napalm, battery acid, WP--all legal. TOXINS (gas, poisons, etc.) are NOT legal. WP is a legal munition--has been for a hundred years. If you don't like it (I don't either) get it banned--but in the meantime, it's legal.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 17 2005,4:56 pm
< Link to Military News >
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 17 2005,5:05 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Nov. 16 2005,7:04pm) |
| If I witnessed WP shells used as a weapon I would go to the Provost Marshall and the Inspector General with the information. What are you paying back Iraq for? Maybe you haven't heard the news but Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9-11. Is any weapon good if it's used by the righteous Christians to kill Muslims? It really doesn't matter what the Nascar fans want to call this, the rest of the world will call it exactly what it is, a chemical that our military is using as a weapon. |
First off Liberal WP has been around longer than you or I have and yet when you served in the military did you have any issue with it being in our arsenal? I doubt that we are the only country with WP in our weapons arsenal and yet no country has ever made an issue with it until this report came out. WP is used for a number of things other than on human beings. If we must declare it a "chemical" weapon than we need to declare a number of other weapons as well. Nobody has an issue with those weapons but yet they fit right in the same group as WP would. I know what WP can do as does anyone who has ever served or bothered to research it and I do not like the thought of using it against other human beings but if it is necessary to use it then as long as it is a LEGAL weapon I say use it.
Secondly Iraq did have some dealings with those that commited the 9/11 atrocities. To me as well as others this makes them guilty by association.
Is any weapon good.......What about the suicide bombers who blow up innocents in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv or the tourists in Malaysia? What about the sailors on the USS Cole or the Marines in Beirut back in 1983 who were killed in cowardly suicide attacks? Did you know that suicide is a mortal sin in the Q'uran? When you commit suicide you are condemned to perform the act for all eternity in hades. (I suspect you know this because you do research your topics) The tourists in Malaysia were not "enemy" combatants by any stretch of the imagination but that did not stop the cowards from killing them. The "righteous" christians at least try to confine the battle to a declared war zone. How about al Zarqawi who is not even Iraqi but yet is performing acts of terror through his organization in this conflict as well as in his own homeland of Jordan?
As for the last quote well if the world wants to label WP as a chemical weapon and thus have it banned then perhaps the rest of the world will make sure that EVERY country follows the law and thus no country will be able to use it. It seems that no matter how hard other countries wish there is always one idiot out there who will gladly use a BANNED substance on his enemies but yet when the US uses a LEGAL weapon we are called to task for it.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 17 2005,9:29 pm
| Quote |
First off Liberal WP has been around longer than you or I have and yet when you served in the military did you have any issue with it being in our arsenal? |
It's not in our arsenal as a weapon, it's used to light up the sky and lay down smoke. It's not designed to be dropped on human beings. You know the military has used battery acid in their vehicles for years and I've never had a problem with them having it. But you can damn sure bet I'd take issue with anyone spraying it over an enemy position.
Does it really make sense to anyone that we're shelling people with artillery rounds full of chemicals in order to remove a person from power because he was shelling people with artillery rounds full of chemicals.
| Quote |
Secondly Iraq did have some dealings with those that commited the 9/11 atrocities. To me as well as others this makes them guilty by association. |
I've got no idea where you get your information, but you should really let the White house in on that because they've been trying to pin the blame on Iraq for a couple years now without any luck. I guess they just don't get their information from the same place you do.
| Quote |
The "righteous" christians at least try to confine the battle to a declared war zone. How about al Zarqawi who is not even Iraqi but yet is performing acts of terror through his organization in this conflict as well as in his own homeland of Jordan? |
Do you realize that the estimates of civilians killed in Iraq range from 26,000 to 100,000 but we have no way of knowing the actual number because we don't keep track of collateral damage. Is that your idea of confining a battle to a war zone?
| Quote |
Is any weapon good.......What about the suicide bombers who blow up innocents in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv or the tourists in Malaysia? What about the sailors on the USS Cole or the Marines in Beirut back in 1983 who were killed in cowardly suicide attacks? |
Suicide bombers have been blowing themselves up since at least WW2 with Japanese kamikazes and mini subs. Whether you like it or not self-sacrifice has always been a part of war and people have died for what they feel is a just cause for hundreds of years. In fact we think of Patrick Henry as one of the most patriotic Americans because he said that he regretted that he only had one life to give this country. And if you look at a list of soldiers awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, it's not hard to see that most people receive America's highest honor for giving their life for our country.
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 17 2005,9:55 pm
Fine. What's the latest liberal solution, then? What should we do next? (Saying we shoudn't have gone in the first place serves nothing now, unless you have a time machine.)What should we do?
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 18 2005,2:20 pm
| Quote |
| In fact we think of Patrick Henry as one of the most patriotic Americans because he said that he regretted that he only had one life to give this country |
Regarding your reply to WarEagle 11B
| Quote |
| It's not in our arsenal as a weapon, it's used to light up the sky and lay down smoke. It's not designed to be dropped on human beings. |
Why do you suppose they would teach that, except for use as a weapon?
Posted by Gomer on Nov. 18 2005,2:42 pm
After reading through this thread I think its safe to say Liberal has a great handle on the situation. All the typical morons piped in with their usual lines. Some where exceptionally funny, like iraq is guilty of 9/11 and a map used by the military is just as horrific as chemical burning agents.
Lets see, Iraqi doctors treated civilians burned by one of our chemical weapons. Our military doesn't deny using the agent in that town, but denies that it hit the civilians. Do we really need to call in judge judy?
Are you honestly going to defend the use of such weapons?
And lets not generalize who we are fighting as all crazy islamic fundamentalists who would see us all dead. We killed at least 20,000 civilians so far. I promise you if I were an Iraqi and some of my immediate family were killed by american air strikes, some of my friends killed at a check point, I would be doing everything possible to kill american troops. Try having some empathy you gung ho war prone morons. You too would be an insurgent had you been born in another time and place.
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 18 2005,3:07 pm
Whoa, this was an air burst fired by several batteries in a urban setting. air burst are primarily anti-personnel, this one had a wide spread, WP was probably used for a psychological effect, the problem it's taking place in a urban setting you're going to have collateral damage civilian casualties. every time we kill or wound an innocent we create more insurgents, possibly there's good reason why this was handled in this manner. the FO at the request of the Company Commander for fire mission, this would also have to clear the battalion Command. There's far better ways to light up the sky, Air Force flare ship or illum shells. this was anti-personnel psychological effect to gain some tactical advantage.
When we use weapons like artillery or AC-130A Spectre Gunship.we're also causing lots of collateral damage..
Mission Accomplished
Posted by twelvemice on Nov. 18 2005,4:00 pm
| Quote (The Game @ Nov. 16 2005,6:19pm) |
| A quick end to a threat against our servicemen is what I would call it. |
The biggest threat to our serviceman is Bush. He was the one who sent them in Iraq with no care or thought for no reason. He is ultimately responsible for all the deaths of our serviceman and all the inconnent Iraqi women and children who have been killed. Everyone knows that America has no business being in Iraq. I agree with Liberal's posts on this topic 100%. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could have voted for Bush. The stupidity of the american people amazes me.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 18 2005,4:44 pm
I'm always amazed that liberals purport to speak "for the servicemen"--when every poll I've seen says the military overwhelmingly voted for Bush. Most service people actually do believe we are doing good things in Iraq. They may grumble about it (a grunt's right) but they willingly go there.The second worst thing you can do to a serviceman is to undermine the mission that he has prepared for, and risking life and limb for.
The WORST thing you can do to a serviceman is to tell him that his sacrifices were in vain--and unappreciated.
Liberals (and I use the capital L only because it was the first letter in the sentence), LET THE MILITARY SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES--IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT--DISSENT ALL YOU WANT TO--BUT DON'T HURT OUR MILITARY.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 18 2005,4:57 pm
| Quote |
I'm always amazed that liberals purport to speak "for the servicemen" |
That's a good one, you accuse liberals of trying to speak for the servicemen and then you continue on to supposedly speak for the servicemen.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't question anything our soldiers do because it might hurt their moral?
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 18 2005,5:58 pm
| Quote (Gomer @ Nov. 18 2005,2:42pm) |
| All the typical morons piped in with their usual lines. Some where exceptionally funny, like iraq is guilty of 9/11 and a map used by the military is just as horrific as chemical burning agents. Are you honestly going to defend the use of such weapons? And lets not generalize who we are fighting as all crazy islamic fundamentalists who would see us all dead. We killed at least 20,000 civilians so far. I promise you if I were an Iraqi and some of my immediate family were killed by american air strikes, some of my friends killed at a check point, I would be doing everything possible to kill american troops. Try having some empathy you gung ho war prone morons. You too would be an insurgent had you been born in another time and place. |
All the typical morons, as you say, would also note that I did not say that Iraq was guilty of 9/11 but only guilty by association. One of the books I have read, and my reading covers quite a spectrum, states that Iraq did have discussions with bin Laden prior to 9/11 as well as harboring a terrorist who's reputation for brutality was known throughout the world. This terrorist was Abu Nidal and Saddam had him killed at his house in Baghdad when it looked like he would turn himself over to the British MI6 agency and thus spill his guts on what he knew Saddam was up to.
I never generalized that we were fighting crazy Islamic fundamentalists although the main enemy now is just that. What would you do if some of your family or friends were innocently standing in a Mosque and some fanatic came in and blew himself up and killed them and dozens of others? Would your rage be so great that you would then go out and attempt to kill any fundamentalist fanatical Iraqi like you would an American soldier. We have killed 20,000 civilians, and I will not dispute that, but what about the thousands that were killed by these same fanatics at Iraqi police stations and in the Mosques and other places throughout the country as well as in Jordan and Malaysia as well as by Saddam's regime. It seems mighty convenient that we can recall how many civilians the US military has killed but yet we forget the thousands upon thousands of Kurds and Shiite's that Saddam systematically imprisoned and killed by any means he could, to include WMD's. (Poison Gas IS considered a WMD) Yes I will defend the use of any weapon that is LEGAL if it means saving our troops.
I have plenty of empathy for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan as I have personally spent time in Afghanistan and I have seen first hand the horrors of 30+ years of war and the effects it has on a civilian population. Where have you been Gomer? For all the bad news that gets reported it is a shame that we so rarely see the good news that our troops do in these countries. I am not a gung ho war prone moron but if we are going to commit ourselves to it then we should finish the job in it's own time and not when the politicians, liberal or otherwise, say we should.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 18 2005,6:07 pm
Once again, not true. This isn't like you--you normally are argumentative, but usually have good comprehension. Have you been bitten by a rabid moonbat or som..........HEY, WAIT A MINUTE! WHO ARE YOU, AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH LIBERAL? 
No, unlike liberals, I don't purport to speak for the servicemen. Check the last paragraph in the post
| Quote |
| Liberals (and I use the capital L only because it was the first letter in the sentence), LET THE MILITARY SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES--IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT--DISSENT ALL YOU WANT TO--BUT DON'T HURT OUR MILITARY. |
| Quote |
| Are you suggesting that we shouldn't question anything our soldiers do because it might hurt their moral? |
In the medical corps in the 1960s, it was bitterly suggested that we leave more corpsmen stateside to take care of the thousands of "casualties" that suddenly lost their spines and guts.
MEDIC! YOU'RE NEEDED IN WASHINGTON! THESE POOR LIBERALS HAVE LOST THEIR SPINE AND GUTS--ALL THAT'S LEFT IS A TALKING HEAD!
Our troops let their wishes be known every time they vote, and according to polls, it isn't for the "cut and run away" crowd! "Support the troops", indeed!
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 18 2005,6:18 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Nov. 17 2005,9:29pm) |
| It's not in our arsenal as a weapon, it's used to light up the sky and lay down smoke. It's not designed to be dropped on human beings. You know the military has used battery acid in their vehicles for years and I've never had a problem with them having it. But you can damn sure bet I'd take issue with anyone spraying it over an enemy position. Does it really make sense to anyone that we're shelling people with artillery rounds full of chemicals in order to remove a person from power because he was shelling people with artillery rounds full of chemicals. I've got no idea where you get your information, but you should really let the White house in on that because they've been trying to pin the blame on Iraq for a couple years now without any luck. I guess they just don't get their information from the same place you do. Do you realize that the estimates of civilians killed in Iraq range from 26,000 to 100,000 but we have no way of knowing the actual number because we don't keep track of collateral damage. Is that your idea of confining a battle to a war zone? Suicide bombers have been blowing themselves up since at least WW2 with Japanese kamikazes and mini subs. Whether you like it or not self-sacrifice has always been a part of war and people have died for what they feel is a just cause for hundreds of years. In fact we think of Patrick Henry as one of the most patriotic Americans because he said that he regretted that he only had one life to give this country. And if you look at a list of soldiers awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, it's not hard to see that most people receive America's highest honor for giving their life for our country. |
Funny but Jim's post brought to mind an incident during Basic Training at Fort Benning Georgia many years ago. I too was told that the best way to put out a WP burn was to smother it. Sure sounds like it was intended to be used as weapon if necessary to me. Big difference in our weapons and what we said Saddam had. I believe ours is LEGAL and his were NOT.
I get my information from the many books I read and as stated in another post my reading is as varied as you can probably imagine. Try Yossef Bodansky's book "The Secret History of the Iraq War". In it he lays claim that Saddam had DEALINGS with bin Laden. I never said that Iraq was GUILTY of the 9/11 attacks but Saddam is guilty by association.
Do you realize that the estimates of those that Saddam has killed are even greater than those you posted? How about those innocent civilians that are killed by these same fanatical suicide bombers. Those numbers are quite high as well. By war zone I believe that would be the ENTIRE country of Iraq and not Jordan or Malaysia or any other part of the world that the al Qaeda terrorists would care to send a suicide bomber or two.
The Kamikaze's didn't strike a tourist resort in Malaysia that was packed with innocent tourists nor a Mosque filled with Shiite's nor 3 hotels in Amman Jordan filled with innocent people whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Kamikaze attacks were directed at MILITARY targets. Suicide bombing is in no way even comparable to our CMH awardees. Suicide bombing is a cowards way of attacking innocent people because they cannot fight their enemy on a level even close to them militarily. Where in the blue blazes did you even concoct THAT comparison. Once more I will say it.... Suicide is a mortal sin in the Q'uran the Holy Book of Islam. A suicide bomber will be condemned to commit this act for all eternity in hades. Our CMH awardees are heroes for their selfless sacrifice for their fellow military brothers and sisters. A suicide bomber is convinced he will be in Heaven with Allah and the virgins that he will be rewarded and his/her act is not selfless and is only a sacrifice in the eyes of some.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 18 2005,6:37 pm
| Quote |
Liberals (and I use the capital L only because it was the first letter in the sentence), LET THE MILITARY SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES--IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT--DISSENT ALL YOU WANT TO--BUT DON'T HURT OUR MILITARY. |
Speaking for the soldiers is exactly what you were trying to do. In fact you even listed the #1 and #2 thing that hurts their morale the most. I don't know how you could think you weren't trying to speak for them
| Quote |
Funny but Jim's post brought to mind an incident during Basic Training at Fort Benning Georgia many years ago. I too was told that the best way to put out a WP burn was to smother it. Sure sounds like it was intended to be used as weapon if necessary to me. |
Doh! Did it ever occur to you they were teaching you this in case it ever got on your skin unintentionally?
Posted by twelvemice on Nov. 18 2005,6:41 pm
If we support our troops so much they why did we ever send them there in the first place?
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 18 2005,8:02 pm
| Quote (twelvemice @ Nov. 18 2005,6:41pm) |
| If we support our troops so much they why did we ever send them there in the first place? |
We didn't 12mice our elected officials both Democrat and Republican voted to do it. In short POLITICS.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 18 2005,8:10 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Nov. 18 2005,6:37pm) |
| Doh! Did it ever occur to you they were teaching you this in case it ever got on your skin unintentionally? |
Hmmmmm or could it be that in case it was used as a weapon we would be able to assist any casualties afterwards. Either way I was taught how to deal with it in the event I or another person came into contact with it.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 18 2005,9:48 pm
| Quote |
| We didn't 12mice our elected officials both Democrat and Republican voted to do it. In short POLITICS. |
Everyone forgets that this war was voted on by congress
< Congress Declared this War >
Not only is it George Bush's war it also belongs to the October 2002 United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War under the War Powers Resolution. The authorization was sought by U.S. President George W. Bush, and it passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23, receiving significant support from both major political parties. It was signed into law by President Bush
The act cited several factors to justify a war:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region" ( OK Nothing Found but had plenty of time to move it)
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Iraq's connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 18 2005,9:56 pm
Step by step in 1992, the US established a postwar security presence in Kuwait itself, building up a headquarters staff and periodically redeploying troops for purposes of deterring Iraqi pressures against Kuwait. Even the new administration under Bill Clinton couldn't quite escape the Iraq problem. In 1993 the Iraqis plotted to assassinate the former president, George H. W. Bush, during his visit to Kuwait. The US responded by launching a cruise missile strike against Iraq's intelligence headquarters. It was a demonstration of US power to the region-and a reminder to Saddam of American hostility. Saddam waited a year and then, in reprise, sent his best divisions south toward Kuwait, where they reoccupied some of the same assembly areas they had used in 1990 to stage the invasion of Kuwait. The US immediately deployed aircraft and alerted US troops for deployment. If it was only an Iraqi feint, it nevertheless generated a renewed American determination not to be caught off-guard again.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 18 2005,10:02 pm
Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror TiesBy Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.
One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.
Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.
Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.
The source of the documents
A senior government official who is not a political appointee provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. The originals, some of which were hand-written and others typed, are in Arabic. CNSNews.com had the papers translated into English by two individuals separately and independent of each other.
There are no hand-writing samples to which the documents can be compared for forensic analysis and authentication. However, three other experts - a former weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), a retired CIA counter-terrorism official with vast experience dealing with Iraq, and a former advisor to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton on Iraq - were asked to analyze the documents. All said they comport with the format, style and content of other Iraqi documents from that era known to be genuine.
Laurie Mylroie, who authored the book, "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America," and advised Clinton on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, told CNSNews.com that the papers represent "the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism" against the U.S.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 18 2005,10:09 pm
What does any of that have to do with WP? Maybe another thread would have been a better choice to cut and paste the propaganda
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 19 2005,12:18 am
| Quote |
A suicide bomber will be condemned to commit this act for all eternity in hades. Our CMH awardees are heroes for their selfless sacrifice for their fellow military brothers and sisters. A suicide bomber is convinced he will be in Heaven with Allah and the virgins that he will be rewarded and his/her act is not selfless and is only a sacrifice in the eyes of some. |
When the suicide bombers make it to hell, will they have plenty of American heroes to hang out with?
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 19 2005,4:29 am
| Quote (twelvemice @ Nov. 18 2005,4:00pm) | ||
The biggest threat to our serviceman is Bush. He was the one who sent them in Iraq with no care or thought for no reason. He is ultimately responsible for all the deaths of our serviceman and all the inconnent Iraqi women and children who have been killed. Everyone knows that America has no business being in Iraq. I agree with Liberal's posts on this topic 100%. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could have voted for Bush. The stupidity of the american people amazes me. |
Sorry Libby I was replying to this post so it fits, everytime I find a rebut to your post it seems to be in the wrong thread.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 19 2005,10:44 am
| Quote |
Sorry Libby I was replying to this post so it fits, everytime I find a rebut to your post it seems to be in the wrong thread. |
Rebutting my post? What are you goofy? You said in the first half of the sentence that you posted it to rebut twelvemice's earlier post. Then you end the sentence by saying you were rebutting me
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 19 2005,10:56 am
I guess it would be better said everytime I don't agree with your liberal friends. George Bush did not do this alone this war cry started back in the Clinton administration and if it hadn't had been for the Monica Gate the Clinton Administration would had most likely started this war. In war people die how they die is in Gods hands.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 19 2005,9:16 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Nov. 19 2005,12:18am) |
| When the suicide bombers make it to hell, will they have plenty of American heroes to hang out with? |
I am sure they will have plenty of Americans, Iraqi's, Afghan's, and a whole slew of other people from every race, creed, religion etc on this planet. You seem to either be ignoring or just plain missed the point of why would you compare a suicide bombers actions to those of our CMH awardees or for that matter the kamikazes of WW2?
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 19 2005,9:33 pm
| Quote |
You seem to either be ignoring or just plain missed the point of why would you compare a suicide bombers actions to those of our CMH awardees or for that matter the kamikazes of WW2? |
They both are committing suicide. It's a mortal sin in all Abrahamic religions, so using your logic every Medal of Honor winner that sacrificed his life will go to hell for committing suicide.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Nov. 19 2005,10:02 pm
Kinda funny that what is a sin against <enter the name of your god here> is considered heroism to one's own countrymen.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 19 2005,10:05 pm
Here's a question for you. Obviously this soldier knew his actions would result in his death, so by definition he comitted suicide. So where do you think this soldier went, Heaven or Hell?| Quote |
Marine sacrifices his life for others in grenade blast By Gordon Trowbridge The Army Times FALLUJAH, Iraq — Sgt. Rafael Peralta built a reputation as a man who always put his Marines' interests ahead of his own. He showed that again, when he made the ultimate sacrifice of his life Tuesday, by shielding his fellow Marines from a grenade blast. "It's stuff you hear about in boot camp, about World War II and Tarawa Marines who won the Medal of Honor," said Lance Cpl. Rob Rogers, 22, of Tallahassee, Fla., one of Peralta's platoon mates in 1st Platoon, Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment. Peralta, 25, as platoon scout, wasn't even assigned to the assault team that entered the insurgent safe house in northern Fallujah, Marines said. Despite an assignment that would have allowed him to avoid such dangerous duty, he regularly asked squad leaders if he could join their assault teams, they said. One of the first Marines to enter the house, Peralta was wounded in the face by rifle fire from a room near the entry door, said Lance Cpl. Adam Morrison, 20, of Tacoma, who was in the house when Peralta was first wounded. Moments later, an insurgent rolled a fragmentation grenade into the area where a wounded Peralta and the other Marines were seeking cover. As Morrison and another Marine scrambled to escape the blast, pounding against a locked door, Peralta grabbed the grenade and cradled it into his body, Morrison said. While one Marine was badly wounded by shrapnel from the blast, the Marines said they believe more lives would have been lost if not for Peralta's selfless act. |
Posted by riffraff on Nov. 20 2005,9:08 am
do the armed forces still use napalm?
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 20 2005,7:02 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Nov. 19 2005,9:33pm) |
| They both are committing suicide. It's a mortal sin in all Abrahamic religions, so using your logic every Medal of Honor winner that sacrificed his life will go to hell for committing suicide. |
Using my line of reasoning?
Our CMH awardees performed their valor while serving in an active military conflict with a declared enemy and not on some innocents in places far from the field of conflict. Perhaps by your definition they commited suicide but not by mine. I will have to take a look in my bible, Lord knows I don't refer to it often enough, and double check a passage I believe is in it but I believe there is a passage that refers to when someone lays down his life for his fellow man. Yes suicide is a mortal sin in every Abrahamic religion but I believe that making a comparison of our CMH awardees, and others who performed similar deeds, to someone whose sole intent is to cause terror and kill innocents is reprehensible. Our CMH awardees performed actions in COMBAT that saved the lives of their friends and fellow military brothers and sisters. A suicide bomber attacks in a setting that will create the most terror and fear. The hotels in Jordan are a good example. The bomber performs his/her act because it is the only option available to him/her since he/she, and their so called leaders, cannot fight a "standard" military battle on an even footing with their enemy.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 20 2005,8:11 pm
| Quote |
Yes suicide is a mortal sin in every Abrahamic religion but I believe that making a comparison of our CMH awardees, and others who performed similar deeds, to someone whose sole intent is to cause terror and kill innocents is reprehensible. |
And your ignorance is reprehensible to me. You're just another wacko that thinks everything Christians/Americans do is right and just, because you believe God sees things the Christian/American way. And I can imagine that it's an absolute foreign thought to you to think that maybe God sees things the Muslim way or the Jewish way.
| Quote |
I will have to take a look in my bible, Lord knows I don't refer to it often enough, and double check a passage I believe is in it but I believe there is a passage that refers to when someone lays down his life for his fellow man. |
So you believe a bible passage allows Christians to give their life for their fellow man, but for some reason this passage wouldn't apply to Muslims?
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Nov. 20 2005,8:46 pm
| Quote |
| with a declared enemy and not on some innocents in places far from the field of conflict. |
So once you declare an enemy on paper that means that god (whichever version of religion you believe is true) forsakes all others that he created in his own image?
| Quote |
| A suicide bomber attacks in a setting that will create the most terror and fear. |
Kind of like when the US sends bombers to blow a small hole in the world?
I think you may want to leave religion out of anything you want to be taken seriously about, selling your soul to a religion is even worse than selling your soul to a political party.
Posted by FlyguyAL on Nov. 20 2005,8:51 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Nov. 19 2005,10:05pm) | ||
Here's a question for you. Obviously this soldier knew his actions would result in his death, so by definition he comitted suicide. So where do you think this soldier went, Heaven or Hell?
|
Is there a difference between suicide to take life and suicide to save life?
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Nov. 20 2005,8:57 pm
| Quote |
| Is there a difference between suicide to take life and suicide to save life? |
Maybe one is spelled Suicide and one is spelled suicide?
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Nov. 20 2005,10:32 pm
OMG, you are arguing over the use of White Phosphorus (P)? Pfft, who cares, I thought the whole intent of war was to decimate your enemy as quickly as possible, by just about any means possible?All they need is an abundant supply of bicarbonate to neutralize the effects of Phosphorus, and maybe a few surgical procedures.
Whats next, an up-roar over, shooting the enemy with rifle rounds?
I guess it didn't really bother me that much, not after what I saw and heard what the bad guys are doing.
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 21 2005,2:04 am
Pfft. WP. Exactly. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some kittens to go drown, and some puppies to cook.
Posted by DrBombay on Nov. 21 2005,4:26 am
Every Christian Religion I've ever heard of considers suicide to be the big one, unforgivable and therefore hell-bound. Unless of course you don't die right away and have time to ask and be forgiven.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 21 2005,9:42 am
There is no greater honor in dying for your country, your God, and saving the lives of your fellow soldiers, this soldier will most likely be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the recieptiants to be his next of kin. His name will be immoralized in granite on a shirne in the future memorial to this war and labeled a Hero.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 21 2005,4:04 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Nov. 20 2005,8:11pm) |
| And your ignorance is reprehensible to me. You're just another wacko that thinks everything Christians/Americans do is right and just, because you believe God sees things the Christian/American way. And I can imagine that it's an absolute foreign thought to you to think that maybe God sees things the Muslim way or the Jewish way. So you believe a bible passage allows Christians to give their life for their fellow man, but for some reason this passage wouldn't apply to Muslims? |
Never did think that everything that is the Christian/American way of doing things was necessarily right or just. I don't believe that God sees things strictly in the Christian way either. I simply used the bible as a reference because a majority of the military is of the Christian faith. I honestly do not believe that God sees things in the Christian, Muslim or Jewish way. Nobody will honestly know how God sees things until the day they come face to face with him. Perhaps God is a Jimmy Buffet fan and he is sitting on the beach in Key West with a cold drink and smiling down on all of us from where ever he/she resides
Who honestly knows. I've been to enough places in this world Liberal to have an open mind when it comes to such things as religion. So once again I will ask you ..... How is a suicide bomber in anyway deserving of comparison to our CMH awardees, or any other person for that matter, who gave his/her life to SAVE others? How is a suicide bomber giving his/her life for their fellow man? If they were honestly doing such a deed I am sure that the Q'uran probably would, and does, say something about how they would be given passage to heaven to reside with Allah and God. My beliefs are just that and I simply use the Christian religions as an example due to the fact that it is the predominant faith in the US as well as in the military.
Ole I am not saying that God forsakes all others but if you are to believe what the fundamentalist Islamic mullahs and terror leaders say then a suicide bomber goes to heaven at the completion of his/her deed. The Q'uran states that this is not so. Suicide bombers are not giving their life for their fellow man but to raise terror and fear in far away places because of their inability to fight on a level field of battle in a "traditional" military way.
I'll end this by saying that above all else I can agree to disagree as I know you can as well Liberal.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 21 2005,4:38 pm
| Quote |
Is there a difference between suicide to take life and suicide to save life? |
My point is, even if there was some difference it would apply to both people.
| Quote |
So once again I will ask you ..... How is a suicide bomber in anyway deserving of comparison to our CMH awardees, or any other person for that matter, who gave his/her life to SAVE others? |
Are you really so thick that you can't understand that suicide bombers believe they are saving others? Or that self sacrifice is suicide no matter what the reason?
The conservatives would like people to believe that these suicide bombers are psychotic and have no motivation other than to kill people. They would also like people to believe that we're taking the fight to the terrorist, and if we stop, it will "embolden the terrorists" and they will attack our country again. (I think they base this on the large number of North Vietnamese terrorist attacks on US soil after we pulled out of Vietnam.
)Of course the crazy sheeple that believe them will tell you that the Muslims are attacking us because they're jealous of our way of life and/or our freedoms. But A person only needs to ask themselves, "How jealous would you have to be to blow yourself up?" to realize that it's obviously a myth. Do you really believe that could possibly be their motivation?
Another popular myth the far right wants to make people believe is that the Muslims can not, or will not peacefully coexist with any other religion. But for 1300 hundred years the Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Eastern Orthodox church have all coexisted in the middle east.
The dangerous thing about believing either of those right wing & Zionist myths is that the only possible end to either of those situations would be the total destruction of the Muslims or Americans/Christians.
It's not hard to see what the Muslim's motivation is if you take an honest look at the history of the middle east over that last 100 years. Just count how many times we were attacked by Muslims before we started supporting the Zionists, and compare that number to the number of attacks that happened after we started giving military aid to Israel, the answer becomes pretty obvious when you do the math.
Back in 2002 there was this Washington economist (Thomas Stauffer) that estimated that assisting Israel in squatting on Palestinian land since 1973 has cost the United States somewhere around 1.6 trillion dollars (that's trillion as in $1,600,000,000,000). One of the reasons it's cost us that much is we've been giving them $3billion ever year in military hardware for many years. The Israelis have put that hardware to use ethnically cleansing large areas of Palestine by evicting entire villages of Muslims and then flattening the villages with bulldozers.
It's not hard to figure out that the Arab world has developed a deep hatred of Israel because of, their aggression against Muslims (and their rather large nuclear stockpile). And since they've been using American supplied military hardware to commit these atrocities in the middle east for the last couple decades it obviously has created an extreme dislike of Americans and our military hardware.
So the Muslim religion isn't really the problem, the problem is our country's unfair support of Zionism through $3 Billion in Military aid every year.
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 21 2005,4:52 pm
Do you honestly think that U.S. support for Israel will diminish in our lifetimes?I didn't think so.
I heard one conservative whack job (Dave Thompson/AM1500) going on about U.S. foreign policy one Sunday afternoon, as I was making my way down Larpenteur Avenue. A caller began asking pointedly, "Why do we even need to support Israel?" Dave did his best at deflecting, and then finally he lost it. He screamed at the caller: "BECAUSE WE NEED TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN OF GOD, THAT'S WHY!!!"
Dave seems like an otherwise sensible person. If you've ever seen him on At Issue, you'd agree. But after I heard that rant, I relegated him to the scrap heap of religious ideological kookery. No thanks...
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 21 2005,4:55 pm
Your points are valid about Israel Lib but you left out one thing that should also be pointed out where the military aid is concerned. While we supplied the Israelis with military aid the Russians, back in the communist heyday, were supplying the Arabs (Syria, Egypt), and other Middle Eastern Arab countries, with more "modern" equipment and usually doing so before we would give Israel more upto date equipment. Yes that was the politics of the day but it is still important to know that without our military assistance the middle east would, perhaps, be without Israel today and countries like Saudi Arabia would, perhaps, not be our "allies".Oh yeah and for those of you who may not already be aware of this the Arab world did not bring terrorism into the world on their own. They had the help of Israel. Right after Israel became a country in 1946 they were fighting for their survival and actually commited acts that by todays standards would be considered a terrorist act.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 21 2005,5:10 pm
Liberal--since you are so good at juxtaposing photo's, how about placing this one of the Clinton Justice Department deportation of Elian Gonzolez next to the "Palestinian at the checkpoint" photo? Same elements--automatic rifle to the head, Federal agent, etc.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 21 2005,5:39 pm
| Quote |
Liberal--since you are so good at juxtaposing photo's, how about placing this one of the Clinton Justice Department deportation of Elian Gonzolez next to the "Palestinian at the checkpoint" photo? |
I don't have to doctor the photo because all 4 photos came off my hard drive and I just put them all together with photoshop so I could post all four in one post. I actually have hundreds of more offensive photos of Jewish aggression that I get from overseas news websites.
For some odd reason the American media doesn't seem to show us the whole picture of the Israel, Palestinian conflict.
| Quote |
Same elements--automatic rifle to the head, Federal agent, etc. |
Automatic Rifle to the head? Who's head is it pointing at?
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 21 2005,5:47 pm
Janet REno's finest hour--sending in the Feds to take out a 6-year old. Do you think this level of force was neccessary?The pictures are remarkably similar--M-16s, Federal Troops--but in Elian's case, THIS HAPPENED IN THE U.S.
And libbies are afraid of the Patriot Act--voted 98-1-1 in favor in the Senate first time around--257-171 in favor in the House when it was renewed in July. But, then, libbies are afraid of most anything. Been to see "Chicken Little" yet--or is that "too scary"?
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 21 2005,5:52 pm
| Quote |
| For some odd reason the American media doesn't seem to show us the whole picture of the Israel, Palestinian conflict. |
What would YOU have them show?You wouldn't be accusing the mainstream media of DOCTORING the NEWS, would you? Especially now that Mary Mapes and Dan Rather are gone from SEE-BS?
Or is it that they don't show the events through the same rose-colored (that would be PINK to the rest of the world) that libbies view the world with--the way they THINK it ought to be.| Quote |
| photos of Jewish aggression that I get from overseas news websites. |
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 21 2005,5:59 pm
You been hitting the sauce Archie? What does the deportation of an illegal alien have to do with the way Jews have been trying to evict the Palestinans from their own land?Only a true right wing nut job would post a picture like that and say the gun was pointed at the kid's head by the "Clinton Justice Department".
| Quote |
This, from the guy that says "I don't read blogs"--as in WEBLOGS? |
I don't read blogs, I do read the major overseas newspapers online versions most Sunday mornings. The two things are not related in anyway.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 21 2005,6:03 pm
| Quote |
The pictures are remarkably similar--M-16s, Federal Troops--but in Elian's case, THIS HAPPENED IN THE U.S. |
Are you retarded? The federal "troops" are holding an MP5. There are no similarities to the photos except in your warped view of the world.
BTW they are federal agents Archie.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 21 2005,6:22 pm
Federal agents--federal troops--I'm sure that makes a BIG difference to a 6 year-old that the gun is pointed at. MP-5 or M-16--is one less deadly than the other? Which one would YOU like pointed at you?
You don't think the description of the federal trooper holding an automatic weapon on a 6 year old is "accurate" because it is pointing one foot below his head?
You decry the "gun to the head at the checkpoint" when it happens in Israel--but OK it when it happens in the U.S.
I can see now how you can rationalize a BJ in the oval office, lying about it to the public, to Congress, and even to the very people that defended him is "all about sex".
I can see now how important technicalities are--"It depends what the meaning of IS--is".
You are nothing but consistent--in your defense of the absurd.
It reminds me of the Middle-Age rhetorical question--"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 21 2005,6:28 pm
| Quote |
You are nothing but consistent--in your defense of the absurd. |
Well if that's not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 21 2005,9:55 pm
Well it seems like the United States government considers WP a chemical weapon. Here's a excerpt from a declassified Pentagon report.< http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declass....1r.html >
The summary of the report says
| Quote |
IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED. |
Here's some of the text in the report.
| Quote |
IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […] IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. |
Let's see the local warmongers explain why it's a chemical weapon when Iraq uses it but not a chemical weapon when we do.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 22 2005,9:58 am
Hard to be sure, but reading the briefing, it looks like this is anecdotal observations BY A KURD--not the US GOVERNMENT.| Quote |
| KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED. TEXT: 1. DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] . DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION, THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS -- A. IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ |
This is further buttressed by the commentary at the end of the document--clearly seperating the Kurdish observation from that of the military.
| Quote |
| COMMENTS: 1. (SOURCE COMMENT) - IRAQ USED WP IN ERBIL AND DOHUK BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE KURDS TO PANIC AND FLEE FROM THE AREA. 2. [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] 3. (SOURCE COMMENT) - MOST OF THE SMUGGLING OF REFUGEES ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS OCCURRED AT NIGHT. 4. (FIELD COMMENT) - ACCORDING TO THE TIMES' WORLD ATLAS, THE TWO IRAQI PROVINCES ERBIL AND DOHUK ARE ALSO CALLED ARBIL AND DIHOK RESPECTIVELY. |
"Government believes WP is a chemical weapon?" I don't think so--all you have here is the observation of a Kurd, not the government. Keep "reaching".
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 22 2005,10:16 am
You're seriously "challenged". The Kurd didn't tell them whether or not it was a chemical weapon, our government made that observation, the Kurd just told them what happened (since we didn't have anyone there) . Once again I've proved you wrong without a shadow of doubt and you won't admit you were wrong. At least I get to say, "I told you so" once again.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 22 2005,1:31 pm
| Quote |
| our government made that observation, |
| Quote |
| the Kurd just told them what happened (since we didn't have anyone there) . |
If ever there was evidence of how liberals view things as they would LIKE TO SEE THEM, THIS IS IT.
Keep reaching and grasping at straws. Does Fountain Center treat delusion?
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 22 2005,1:35 pm
| Quote |
Yes, and it was the KURD, not the government, that called it a "chemical weapon" |
The Kurd wrote the Pentagon report
Are you going to Blame the Kurds for the WMD lies also?
Bush didn't lie, he was just repeating what he heard from a Kurd.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 22 2005,3:48 pm
You come up with a document quoting a Kurd--and somehow figure it is a "smoking gun" of someone in the U.S. government "admitting" that WP is a "chemical weapon". It is obvious that the document is quoting the Kurd--
| Quote |
| THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED |
| Quote |
| THESE REPORTS OF POSSIBLE WP CHEMICAL WEAPON ATTACKS SPREAD QUICKLY AMONG THE KURDISH POPULACE IN ERBIL AND DOHUK. |
| Quote |
| (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). |
| Quote |
| 3. (SOURCE COMMENT) - MOST OF THE SMUGGLING OF REFUGEES ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS OCCURRED AT NIGHT. 4. (FIELD COMMENT) - ACCORDING TO THE TIMES' WORLD ATLAS, THE TWO IRAQI PROVINCES ERBIL AND DOHUK ARE ALSO CALLED ARBIL AND DIHOK RESPECTIVELY. |
I know you would grasp at anything to back your ridiculous assertion--one not shared by any other world body other than Democratic Underground and the Italian Communist Party (wait--that would be REDUNDANT!)
Once again, a libbie looking at things the way he thinks they OUGHT to look--not at the facts. From the Mind of a Moonbat!
I used the rofl sign--but had to remove it--while libbies consider Conservates "mean spirited"--we usually just get a good laugh at liberal's expense. There comes a time, though, that it isn't funny any more. You can laugh at the antics of kids and clowns--but when it turns dangerous to us all, it's time to quit laughing, get serious, call it off, and get down to the serious business of running the country instead of political posturing.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 22 2005,4:00 pm
Yep, no doubt about it, you're a right wing nut job that would rather make a complete fool of himself defending this administration than ever admit the administration did anything wrong. Are you seriously trying to tell me that he Kurd said, "They bombed us with WP rounds, and it's a chemical weapon ya know" and then the Pentagon just repeated it unintentionally leaving the Kurd's reference to chemical weapons in the report.
You're pathological inability to admit you're wrong is comical.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 22 2005,4:52 pm
Have some one else explain it to you--this is like the old ethical dilema of a crazed drowning person--He doesn't know how dangerous he is, so do you try to save him and risk the lives of the rescuers, or just back away, leave him alone, and don't let him take someone else down with him? It would be great if we could leave libbies to their own devices, where they could bask in their own man-made hell--but they insist on taking the sane population down with them.
Let's give the libbies the big Eastern cities--Washington, DC, Detroit, and the Left Coast (if you ever want to see what "libbie-land would look like, look at San Francisco, Detroit, New York, Boston, Washington DC, etc for a glimpse of hell)
Some people don't think a country geographically divided between East and West Coasts would work--it can't be much different than the old East and West Pakistan! Libbies can protest, march, engage in their own abberant behavior, curse "the man" or anyone else for their own failings, enact higher taxes, more strident enviornmental regulations, gun regulations, etc. ON EACH OTHER--AS LONG AS THEY LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE. Fair Trade? It USED to be that self-reliant people could go to Alaska to escape the creeping socialism of the "lower 48"--but that has been ruined as well. It USED to be that people could go to CAnada for the same reasons--but the liberals up there have ruined that country with insane laws, high "sin taxes" high taxes, and a gutted military to pay for their socialist system. If there is any question of how fast a country can go downhill--look no further--a once-dependable ally has sunk to not being able to take care of itself.
With all of the "Socialist Paradises" on Earth--why can't liberals DO WHAT THEY SAY THEY WERE GOING TO DO AFTER THE LAST ELECTION, AND LEAVE THE COUNTRY? (Is it because they are USED to spouting meaningless rhetoric?) We would ALL be happier!
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 22 2005,5:30 pm
That's funny, a couple hundred words on how evil liberals are but not one word about how you were WRONG again, or about how GW supposedly got his intel about chemical weapons from an anonymous Kurd. Just out of curiosity how many liberal politicians are currently facing indictments?
| Quote |
I know you would grasp at anything to back your ridiculous assertion--one not shared by any other world body other than Democratic Underground and the Italian Communist Party (wait--that would be REDUNDANT!) |
Here's a link of all the news organizations reporting on the WP.
< http://news.google.com/news?q=White+Phosphorus >
BTW, How goes the Able Danger investigation?
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 22 2005,7:18 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Nov. 22 2005,10:16am) |
| You're seriously "challenged". |
He's not the one who made TTT a referee...
I thinks that speaks volumes about who's "challenged"...
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 23 2005,12:38 pm
| Quote |
I know you would grasp at anything to back your ridiculous assertion--one not shared by any other world body other than Democratic Underground and the Italian Communist Party (wait--that would be REDUNDANT!) |
Here's an article from Forbes website. I'd guess the Russian Parliment doesn't count as a world body in Jim's world.
| Quote |
MOSCOW (AFX) - The Russian parliament condemned today as 'absolutely unacceptable' the use last year by US forces in Iraq of toxic white phosphorus bombs, which it said was prohibited under international law. 'Deputies of the Duma consider the use, under cover of the noble aims of the fight against terrorism, of any type of weapon banned by international conventions, particularly phosphorus bombs, as absolutely unacceptable,' a statement adopted unanimously in the lower house read. The measure was adopted after the Pentagon last week confirmed that the toxic agent had been used against Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah last November, although it denied that civilians had been targeted. 'It's part of our conventional weapons inventory. We use it like we use any other conventional weapon,' Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said in Washington. His comments were in response to a documentary broadcast November 8 by Italy's RAI television network alleging that white phosphorous munitions had been used against both insurgents and civilians in the Sunni town of Fallujah in November 2004. A yellowish substance with a pungent smell similar to garlic, white phosphorous erupts spontaneously into fire when exposed to oxygen, releasing a dense white smoke. Incandescent particles of white phosphorus can cause deep, painful chemical burns, according to GlobalSecurity.Org, a Washington group that gathers information on military topics. |
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 23 2005,1:11 pm
Thank you for the links. The common thread in all of them is that the weapons are not proscribed by any treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory. The BBC piece goes back to refernce the use of WP in Vietnam. Not even the "counter-culture" of the era objected at the time. News a little slow getting to the commune? If there was any doubt about just HOW FAR LEFT OUR RESIDENT LIBERAL HAS GONE, CONSIDER WHO HE IS QUOTING:
The Russian Parliament
The Duma
The Italian Communist Party
Would that be the SAME GROUP of people that TRADED WITH SADDAM during the "oil for
Liberal
| Quote |
| If I witnessed WP shells used as a weapon I would go to the Provost Marshall and the Inspector General with the information. |
The Communist Party, again? Or the ineffectual, corrupt UNITED NATIONS--whose "peacekeepers" have proved more of a threat than any occupying army? So far, not many people other than the Communists seem too worried about the issue.
COME BAAAACKKKK, LIBERAL! COME BACK FROM THE EDGE!
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 23 2005,1:19 pm
Of course you'll only see what you want to, but anyone that follows the links can see you were wrong on every count.Let's review... Jim says they aren't chemical weapons, I prove they are chemical weapons according to our government, so Jim rants about evil liberals. Then Jim says no "world body" cares if we used chemical weapons, I supply proof that the Russians parliament had something to say about it yesterday, Jim whines about the evil liberals and then complains that the only people that have complained are communists.
I guess you learn something new every day, last I heard Russia was no longer a communist country
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 23 2005,2:15 pm
My question is to you IS THERE REALLY ANY HUMANE WAY TO KILL SOMEONE the result is the same no matter how it is done and what it is done with. Have you ever looked into the eyes of a man as you took his life?
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 23 2005,2:28 pm
Of course it matters because we're there fighting a war over Saddam using the same freaking weapons we're using. Maybe we can tell the rest of the world how evil Saddam tortured people in secret prisons, oh wait we did that too. Kind of hard to take the moral high ground when things like this happen, isn't it?And don't bother telling me a story about a forward observer looking anyone in the eye while they killed them.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 23 2005,3:24 pm
| Quote |
| Jim says they aren't chemical weapons, I prove they are chemical weapons according to our government, so Jim rants about evil liberals |
| Quote |
| Then Jim says no "world body" cares if we used chemical weapons, I supply proof that the Russians parliament had something to say about it yesterday |
Liberal downplays the source when anyone else uses it--but now freely quotes the Italian Communist Party and the Russians?
| Quote |
| I guess you learn something new every day, last I heard Russia was no longer a communist country |
That doesn't mean that it no longer is a Communist country--the old CPSU has split into a number of parties--which formed an alliance. Still the same people that are not to be trusted--they violated the arms embargo of Saddam by trading with the enemy--then tried to derail the UN votes to protect the money he owed them and the money he was funneling to them--making them unreliable whores.Go "report" these transgressions to the Commissars--be sure to "denounce" the U.S. as you do--you may get a bigger Dacha and an extra ration card!
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 23 2005,3:31 pm
| Quote |
It IS true that the Communist Party has been relegated to a minority party in Russia--just like their "comrades in arms", the Democrats. |
So what you're saying is you were WRONG again.
When is the last time you were right about any subject?
(at least your consistent
)So how goes the Able Danger investigation? Did the far right figure out a way to blame Clinton for 9-11 yet?
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 23 2005,3:57 pm
You should use the entire quote when trying to reach for a point--follows: | Quote |
| It IS true that the Communist Party has been relegated to a minority party in Russia--just like their "comrades in arms", the Democrats. That doesn't mean that it no longer is a Communist country--the old CPSU has split into a number of parties--which formed an alliance.[/quote] [quote]So how goes the Able Danger investigation? |
| Quote |
| Did the far right figure out a way to blame Clinton for 9-11 yet? |
Not thinking the U.S. wouldn't fight--the same thing that Yamamoto counted on in WW II. Perhaps the U.S. WAS wimpy under Clinton (and CArter before him) but it certainly wasn't true under Reagan, Bush 41, or Bush 43.
Bin Laden and Saddam "misunderestimated" Bush--but then, so did Gore and Kerry.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 23 2005,4:32 pm
Well if it's Clinton's fault someone should make the 9-11 commission do their job. Oh wait, they did do their job and found out it was Bush's fault. I think they said something about a PDB that Rice read to Bush that said something like "Usama determined to strike the US".It's funny that in a discussion on the use of WP you've brought up John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Senator Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Elian Gonzolez , Janet Reno, Mapes, Dan Rather, the UN and communists, but you haven't had anything of substance to say about the WP. Do you really think anyone takes you seriously when you spew right wing rhetoric like that?
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 23 2005,5:39 pm
| Quote |
I'm gonna TELLLLL! I'm gonna TELLLL!" Tell who, the same Army (U.S. or Britain) that's USING it? |
Hey Archie, I was a military policeman, telling on people was my job in the Army. Like I said I'd go through the Provost Marshall's chain of command and if the PM ignored the crime, I'd go to the Inspector General just like my rich uncle paid me to do.
Here's a story from the Independent in the United Kingdom about the document Jim was referring to as my "Smoking Gun". It seems the rest of the world is looking at that document as a smoking gun also. I'd be willing to bet that as this story breaks not one single right wing nut job will try that lame argument of Jim's, "The US didn't say it was a chemical weapon... The Kurd said it.".
| Quote |
US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon' By Peter Popham and Anne Penketh Published: 23 November 2005 The Italian journalist who launched the controversy over the American use of white phosphorus (WP) as a weapon of war in the Fallujah siege has accused the Americans of hypocrisy. Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon". The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders." In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships." According to the intelligence report, the "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas" across the border into Turkey. "When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon," said Mr Ranucci, "but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon. The injuries it inflicts, however, are just as terrible however you describe it." In the television documentary, eyewitnesses inside Fallujah during the bombardment in November last year described the terror and agony suffered by victims of the shells . Two former American soldiers who fought at Fallujah told how they had been ordered to prepare for the use of the weapons. The film and still photographs posted on the website of the channel that made the film - rainews24.it - show the strange corpses found after the city's destruction, many with their skin apparently melted or caramelised so their features were indistinguishable. Mr Ranucci said he had seen photographs of "more than 100" of what he described as "anomalous corpses" in the city. The US State Department and the Pentagon have shifted their position repeatedly in the aftermath of the film's showing. After initially saying that US forces do not use white phosphorus as a weapon, the Pentagon now says that WP had been used against insurgents in Fallujah. The use of WP against civilians as a weapon is prohibited. Military analysts said that there remain questions about the official US position regarding its observance of the 1980 conventional weapons treaty which governs the use of WP as an incendiary weapon and sets out clear guidelines about the protection of civilians. Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, called for an independent investigation of the use of WP during the Fallujah siege. "If it was used as an incendiary weapon, clear restrictions apply," he said. "Given that the US and UK went into Iraq on the ground that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people, we need to make sure that we are not violating the laws that we have subscribed to," he added. Yesterday Adam Mynott, a BBC correspondent in Nassiriya in April 2003, told Rai News 24 that he had seen WP apparently used as a weapon against insurgents in that city. < http://news.independent.co.uk/article293866.ece > |
OK Archie, tells us all about the
Here's a link to many more US and international stories on the WP
< News stories >
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 24 2005,5:11 pm
| Quote |
| I was a military policeman, telling on people was my job in the Army. |
Here is a link to your Italian journalist--Sigfrido Ranucci--he fancies himself as the Italian Michael Moore.
The film is long (about 20 minutes) and covers the predictable libbie stance--"it's all about oil", the Brits and the Americans are not to be trusted, Saddam is a peaceful man", etc. The film starts out with pictures and descriptions of the Americans using napalm in Vietnam (true) but then shows the famous picture of a naked girl running down the road--the result of American napalm. The reality was that the South Vietnamese, not the Americans, conducted the attack. The girl praised the Americans, and now lives in the U.S. The would-be Mhore-on uses cuts from soldier interviews (another Moore technique) to indict the U.S. in prosecuting the war in Falujah--"We were told that everyone in Falujah was an enemy" says one, but later, is heard saying "10 year olds were fighting" and "we targeted anyone carrying an AK-47" (DUH!) The film ends with an elderly lady (a British Cindy Sheehan?)
talking about how unfair it is for the US and British governments to kill Iraqis. In an endless pity-party, the very end of the film shows a famous clip of a military Blackhawk taking out insurgents in trucks in the desert. (To which I applauded) One must wonder--JUST WHAT IS HIS POINT?
< http://72.14.203.104/custom?....e=UTF-8 >
Here's another site for you, libbie. It's a four-page document listing all of the chemical weapons, and how they may or many not be construed as weapons. Nerve agents, blister agents, choking agents--NO MENTION OF WP IN THE ENTIRE 4 PAGES. It is NOT written by the U.S. government, it is written by the OPCW in the Hague! Even the LIBBIES don't consider WP as a chemical weapon!
< http://www.opcw.org/docs....on' >
Here's THE MURTHA OF ALL MORONS--the new "BAGHDAD BOB"!
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 24 2005,8:21 pm
Do you realize that this isn't a contest to see who can type the most? It's rather obvious to anyone that reads this thread that you were completely out of gas in your arguments when you tried to say that a Kurd wrote (and titled) a Pentagon report that claimed Iraq used WP as a chemical weapon. Of course instead of admitting you were wrong (seems like a common republican trait these day) you post hundreds and hundreds of words of republican rhetoric that looks like you did a cut and paste from Rush "the junkie" Limbaugh's website.
By the way... How's the Able Danger investigation coming along for you and the rest of the crazy right wing nut jobs? Have any of you nut jobs figured out a way to blame Clinton for 9-11
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 24 2005,11:14 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Nov. 24 2005,8:21pm) |
| Have any of you nut jobs figured out a way to blame Clinton for 9-11 |
Jebus! Where have you been? That was episodes and episodes of Lush Rimjob ago...
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 25 2005,12:48 pm
What's the matter, libbie? Can't find anyone else in the non-Communist world that believes the "WP is an illegal chemical weapon bullcrap? | Quote |
| you post hundreds and hundreds of words of republican rhetoric that looks like you did a cut and paste from Rush "the junkie" Limbaugh's website |
As I said in another post--there is no such thing as overkill when talking to liberals--you have to beat them between the eyes!
| Quote |
| Have any of you nut jobs figured out a way to blame Clinton for 9-11 |
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 25 2005,12:54 pm
Here's an interesting fact.When you search google news with the quoted words "White Phosphorus" you get 694 for articles on White-Phosphorus that have been published all over the world.
< http://news.google.com/news?so....ch+News >
On the other hand if you search for the quoted words "Able Danger" you get 106 news articles nearly all of them from right wing nut jobs here in the good ol' USA.
< http://news.google.com/news?so....nger%22 >
It's also interesting to note that every WP story had been published this month and Able Danger goes back several months. Do you see the difference? Able Danger was a nonstarter because Weldon and that thief have zero credibility.
Obviously nobody is buying the conservative rhetoric these days. That's probably why the junkie doesn't even have a television show anymore.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 25 2005,5:04 pm
Yep--and a lot of those articles mention that the it isn't proscribed by any treaty the U.S. has signed--but then, you wouldn't tell us that, would you? | Quote |
| That's probably why the junkie doesn't even have a television show anymore. |
| Quote |
| Obviously nobody is buying the conservative rhetoric these days. |
and get gifts from George Soros to BUY COMMERCIAL TIME! So, let's revisit this again--WHO ISN'T BUYING INTO WHOSE PROGRAM? Let's compare business models. Maybe if Al Franken would spend some time preparing for HIS show (Air America), they would have some listeners!
The left-despised Limbaugh has over 20 million visitors--and Franken has HOW MANY? About the same population as Albert Lea?
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 25 2005,6:08 pm
| Quote |
Absolutely the stupidest statement I've ever heard you make. |
Well it could be worse, you could find yourself saying that everyday like I do.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Nov. 25 2005,8:18 pm
| Quote |
| The U.S. has the weapons in its inventory, it is legal |
So does that mean instead of using rifles for firing squads we should start using nuclear warheads?
After all, they are in our arsenal.
How about we lob a couple of nukes at the looters down south instead of tear gas or rubber bullets, after all, they are in our arsenal.
Maybe we should just use bowie knives to cut people's heads off during the next riot, after all, bowie knives are in our arsenal.
Kinda funny how some people will get sooooooo uptight if an American civilian's head gets cut off, but yet they see absolutely no problem with American's doing something like burning a non-American civilian alive with chemical weapons.
Perhaps the new Republican mantra should be Death to the non American-Republican populous, let god sort them out!
The way some Republican's seem to think, sometimes it is hard to draw a distinguishing line between them and the enemy.
Posted by Ned Kelly on Nov. 26 2005,9:51 am
[quote=Ole1kanobe,Nov. 25 2005,8:18pm]| Quote |
| The way some Republican's seem to think, sometimes it is hard to draw a distinguishing line between them and the enemy. |
.....ned
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 27 2005,4:06 pm
| Quote |
| So does that mean instead of using rifles for firing squads we should start using nuclear warheads? |
Does it really matter to the person being executed? It's like the choices available in several states with the death penalty--"would you like to be shot or hanged? Gassed or electrocuted? We can do lethal injection."
It takes a "special person" to say that one form of death is "OK" or "sanctioned" and another is not.
Guidelines and treaties have been adopted for warfare. WP is not on any of them--but nuclear arms are. Turn this argument on its head--nuclear explosions ARE allowed--does this make libbies "feel better"?
WP has been used in artillery shells for over 100 years--but libbies have just "discovered" it and want to make an issue of it.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 27 2005,4:42 pm
Well if it doesn't matter how you kill people then why are we even in Iraq? Wasn't it something about chemical weapons, and WMDs?I know you'll whine that WP is an incendiary weapon and not a chemical weapon (according to you and the rest of the wing nuts), so you think it's okay to use on insurgents and future insurgents like these two, but your flawed right wing logic doesn't carry any weight with the rest of the world.
At least we can be thankful that bigots like you are a dying breed.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 27 2005,6:34 pm
You mean the chemical weapons he used on these Kurds?
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 27 2005,7:02 pm
Yet somehow in your mind one is justified and the other is not.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Nov. 27 2005,8:43 pm
It's called living in a civilized world.Granted, war is not civilized, but how can we use such devices and still condemn others for doing the same?
If we use WP, why not any device or chemical. Why not just poison the water tables? That would surely get all the bad apples in Iraq, maybe rain down clouds of anthrax over the areas the insurgents might be.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 28 2005,4:22 pm
Liberal what are your feeling on this round< http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m830a1.htm >
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 28 2005,6:19 pm
I've got no problem with any weapon that's used for it's intended purpose.Here's some interesting info from that same site for all you knuckleheads that don't have a problem with the US dropping chemical munitions on people.
| Quote |
(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets. < Battle Book of the US Army Command and General Staff College > |
Does that make it clearer?
Posted by Wareagle11B on Nov. 28 2005,6:57 pm
I am well aware of the INTENDED use for WP but to label it in the same manner as the weapons Saddam had is ridculous.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 28 2005,7:22 pm
| Quote |
I am well aware of the INTENDED use for WP but to label it in the same manner as the weapons Saddam had is ridculous. |
Saddam used WP the same as we did, do you think his WP is somehow different than ours?
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Nov. 28 2005,11:19 pm
| Quote (Wareagle11B @ Nov. 28 2005,6:57pm) |
| I am well aware of the INTENDED use for WP but to label it in the same manner as the weapons Saddam had is ridculous. |
The difference is that people are trying to justify it by playing word games.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 29 2005,12:17 pm
We could probably settle this whole issue by getting hold of Army Field Manual FM-6-141 and 142--evaluation and uses of munitions--but they are classified. You have to contact the Army to get a password. Here are reprints of a couple of unclassified Army manuals.From < http://www.globalsecurity.org/militar....REF92h4 >
| Quote |
| 4-16. SHELL WHITE PHOSPHORUSShell white phosphorus (WP) has four uses: incendiary, marking, obscuring, and screening. It can be used to destroy the enemy's equipment or to limit his vision. It is used against the following: Vehicles. Petroleum, oils and lubricants (POL) and ammunition storage areas. Enemy observers. Also, shell WP can be used as an aid in target location and navigation. It can be fired with fuze time to obtain an airburst. |
A big document--but not one reference to proscribed uses of WP
From Field Manual 60-20-1 Battalion Commanders Artillery< http://www.globalsecurity.org/militar.....htm#s3 >
| Quote |
| WP is effective as a marking round and in initial adjustments. An airburst WP round may be used as the initial round in adjustment. |
| Quote |
| White phosphorus should be used for CAS target identification. |
The manual also has reference to chemical firings, and tactical nuclear weapons. Nowhere in this document does it refer to WP rounds as Chemical weapons--it lists the chemical weapons in inventory, but conspicuous by its absence is any reference to WP as a chemical round.
Imagine that--a document that is so inclusive that it includes chemical shell procedures, and even nuclear weapons--but I suppose that they "forgot" to list WP rounds as a "chemical weapon"
I guess the authors of the procedures document never considered that Moonbats would ever call WP "chemical" weapons.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 29 2005,12:24 pm
They don't consider battery acid as a chemical weapon either, so why don't we just hose them down with battery acid?
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 29 2005,12:45 pm
| Quote (Liberal @ Nov. 28 2005,6:19pm) | ||
| I've got no problem with any weapon that's used for it's intended purpose. Here's some interesting info from that same site for all you knuckleheads that don't have a problem with the US dropping chemical munitions on people.
Does that make it clearer? |
Chad do you understand how the round I linked to works.
The round is intended for light armored vehicals it burns its way thru the vehical and emits a gas inside igniting burning everyone inside. That is its intended use.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 29 2005,1:06 pm
| Quote |
it burns its way thru the vehical and emits a gas inside igniting burning everyone inside. That is its intended use. |
This really goes without saying, but I'll say it anyways. "You're retarded".
It's an antitank weapon that uses a chemical propellant and a shape charge to breech the hull of a armored vehicle. That's no different then another chemical called "gun powder" that makes lead fly down range and through people.
Since you seem to have a reading comprehension problem I'll highlight the relevant parts
| Quote |
The 120mm M830 High Explosive Anti-Tank-Multi Purpose - Tracer (HEAT-MP-T) is a chemical energy, multi-purpose projectile with an anti-personnel capability. It is largely a technology transfer from the ballistically identical German model DM12A1 except for the M764 fuze, double safety, and propellant containment bag. The round consists of a fin stabilized steel body which is loaded with Composition A3 Type II explosive. |
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 29 2005,1:20 pm
I watched Mail Call Sunday night Gunny explained how the round worked, just as I posted. Research it a little further.< http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m830.jpg >
Posted by GEOKARJO on Nov. 29 2005,1:33 pm
Insensitive explosive composition , United States Patent 5472531Abstract: The explosive blasting composition in this invention contains 1 to 40 pert Aluminum powder, 40 to 80 percent Cyclotetramethylene Tetranitramine, 4 to 15 percent Cellulose Acetate Butyrate, 5 to 20 percent of 1:1 mixture of bis 2,2-dinitropropyl acetate and bis 2,2-dinitropropyl formal, and, and 0.25 to 0.75 percent Tri (dioctyl Phosphato) Titanate. The method of making the above composition consists of combining Cyclotetramethylene Tetranitramine, Cellulose Acetate Buterate, 1:1 bis 2,2-dinitropropyl acetate and bis 2,2-dinitropropropyl formal, and tri (dioctyl phosphato) titanate, mixed at an elevated temperature for a period of time. Prior to blowdown, the Aluminum powder is added. to the mix. Mixing continues and blowdown is initiated to remove excess solvents for the purpose of extrusion.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 29 2005,2:01 pm
What's your point? You post the chemical makeup of the shape charge or propellant and think that somehow proves Here's a list of the parts of the round, why don't you explain which part "emits a gas that ignites and kills people"
| Quote |
M830 Projectile Combustible Cartridge Case w/Case Base & Seal Assembly M123A1 Primer Propellant (DIGL-RP) |
This weapon is pretty much just a 120mm smooth bore tank round that uses a shaped charge to penetrate armor. Which is essentially the same thing a LAW rocket, or 90mm recoilless rifle does. These are all conventional anti-armor/anti personnel rounds so I really don't see what point you're trying to make.
Maybe you should send this "Gunny" character an email and have him double check his facts.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Nov. 29 2005,7:37 pm
| Quote |
| Nowhere in this document does it refer to WP rounds as Chemical weapons--it lists the chemical weapons in inventory, but conspicuous by its absence is any reference to WP as a chemical round. |
Again, a word game.
It's common sense, WP is a chemical being used as a weapon.
Do you really need someone to tell you in an offical document before you realize that?
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 30 2005,1:22 pm
| Quote |
| It's common sense, WP is a chemical being used as a weapon. |
SAYS WHO?
In the last couple of weeks, the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground have been awash in charges that "The US is using chemical weapons!!!!" Started by protests from the Italian Communists--libbie bloggers have been taking up the chant--all with the same "talking points".
Never mind that it has been in the U.S. arsenal for 100 years.
Never mind that in that time, nobody in the U.S. military has been charged in using these weapons that the Italian Communists (and their socialist bretheren in the US) now find "illegal.
Never mind that WP is not illegal in any treaty the U.S. has ever signed.
Given that it hasn't been illegal since the lefties DECLARED it to be "illegal"--WHO IS PLAYING WORD GAMES? The lefties WANT this to be "illegal" to embarrass the U.S. Their true colors are showing.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 30 2005,2:36 pm
| Quote | ||
That's the whole argument--SAYS WHO? |
Anyone with a little common sense and a third grade education, that's who.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 30 2005,3:43 pm
Wouldn't ya' think, Beav--thatIf WP was illegal, SOMEBODY in the last 100 years would have been indicted for using it?
If WP was illegal, the U.S. would have destroyed their stocks?
If WP was illegal, why do so many countries HAVE it?
If WP was illegal, the U.S. wouldn't inventory it, ship it over seas, and have it ready to fire in artillery shells?
If WP was illegal, what are we supposed to do with the WP SMOKE ROCKETS used by Forward Air Controllers to mark targets? (radio transmission) "Fast movers, this is FAC 47. I'm going to mark your target with WP smoke rockets--but I don't dare fire the rockets ON the target. The actual target is 150 meters West of my smoke. Unload all your ordinance on them". It's OK to kill them with napalm, high explosives, flechettes, fuel-air concussion bombs, air dropped mines, anti-personnel ordinace--but liberals don't want you to kill anybody with WP!
And libbies wonder why their antics and histrionics are the basis of mirth and mockery by the rest of us?
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 30 2005,3:48 pm
Using your logic since we have battery acid in our possession then we can hose them down with it. | Quote |
And libbies wonder why their antics and histrionics are the basis of mirth and mockery by the rest of us? |
I got news for you about that laughter you're hearing, they aren't laughing with you, they're laughing at you.
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 30 2005,3:53 pm
| Quote |
| Using your logic since we have battery acid in our possession then we can hose them down with it. |
How about an answer on the other questions?
Or is this the libbie "side-step" dance?
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Nov. 30 2005,7:42 pm
| Quote |
| Given that it hasn't been illegal since the lefties DECLARED it to be "illegal"--WHO IS PLAYING WORD GAMES? The lefties WANT this to be "illegal" to embarrass the U.S. Their true colors are showing |
What does the legality matter??
Are you so brainwashed by your pollitics that you have lost all moral judgement??
Ok, here it is in nice big letters so you might get it:
IF WE ARE GOING TO USE CHEMICALS AS WEAPONS, HOW CAN WE EVEN THINK OF PASSING JUDGEMENT ON ANYONE ELSE THAT DOES THE SAME?
Isn't this whole Iraq deal because of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction? Isn't that why Bush took us into Iraq, with 9/11 as a backup clause?
Where's that damn bouncing ball.......
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 01 2005,9:50 am
| Quote |
| What does the legality matter?? |
Why don't you get most of the world to come up with a consensus--a treaty--instead of just listening to the Italian Communists and Howard Dean?
You could use the UN
or NATO. What's that you say, that's already been tried, and nations didn't see it your way? Once again--LIBBIES call it "chemical"--the rest of the world calls it "incendiary". It's been used for a hundred years--nobody has been prosecuted for using it--MANY nations have it in their stockpile--but now libbies want to change the meaning of the wording without actually changing the law.
That works in activist courts--but not in the real world.
If you want to make it illegal--get it banned internationally--get other countries to sign on--other than that--that's life in the real world--not in libbie land.