Napalm In Iraq? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

07-05-2005, 11:49 AM

stevo, the point I'm making is that the US army are so effective that someone in conflict with them would be better off striking soft targets, because they'd be able to inflict a more devestating blow as evidenced in the 9/11 strikes, the French Resistance, Iraqi Insurgency, and other guerilla styles of warfare.

I'm not saying I agree with such tactics, only that they are the only effective means of combat against a technologically and millitarily superior force.

If you wanted to hurt the US, how would you plan your attack?

As for usage of napalm type weapons, unguided bombs and landmines, it is the indiscriminate nature of these weapons that makes their use deplorable, not necessarily the methods they use to inflict casualties on one's opponents.

Seaver · 07-05-2005, 06:36 PM

Quote:

There are plenty of non-lethal weapons that can be employed - at a cost. What I'm averse to is usage of things like landmines that continue to injure children for many years after the conflict ends and other cheap and indiscriminate weaponry.

With the exception of Vietnam (due to the pullout), we have accounted for and disarmed all landmines used in battle. So why should we sign the treaty?

Quote:

Landmines, cluster bombs, napalm, biological weapons, toxin weapons are usually deployed against millitary targets, it's when the target is missed that things turn bad.

This simply boggles the mind. Everything that kills, when missed, turns bad. How about regular bombs? Heck a missed knife can kill, should we outlaw those too?

This is a war, people are complaining we used weapons that are legal, against legitimate targets firing on American/Iraqi forces, in a time of war. Whats the problem again?

Mantus · 07-05-2005, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

With the exception of Vietnam (due to the pullout), we have accounted for and disarmed all landmines used in battle. So why should we sign the treaty?

This is a completely un-based claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

This simply boggles the mind. Everything that kills, when missed, turns bad. How about regular bombs? Heck a missed knife can kill, should we outlaw those too?

Please read the next paragraph in my post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

This is a war, people are complaining we used weapons that are legal, against legitimate targets firing on American/Iraqi forces, in a time of war. Whats the problem again?

The difference is that certain weapons are worse then others. Some having a higher chance to cause civilian casualties then others. Now it's still out to be proven if the MK77s are indeed "that bad". It could be a moot case Seaver, but I am sure you can understand "what the problem" might be.

Ballzor · 07-07-2005, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This was during the most closely monitored offensive in modern warfare history.

Id say it is so closely monitored by literally everyone around the world, that in truth, nobody knows whats going on. Reporters are so quick to jump on any and every story to feed the masses that all of the bullshit that usually gets filtered out is thrown in. No one here knows jack shit about this war and you all know it, so quit trying to act like what you say has any grounds at all. In 20 years, everyone will have plenty of time to dissect each and every little thing, you know, like we do with every other war.

If anyone that visits these forums has served in, or around Iraq in any way shape or form, let them be the starting grounds for your rants, complaints, and bias

Marvelous Marv · 07-10-2005, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

Good call Seaver - I'd like to see evidence of that treaty, please post a link.

Either way, considering that Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and the US waging a war based on that issue, subsequently using them themselves, doesn't make the action any less hypocritical does it?

Oh, please.

Google "United Nations Security Council Resolution 687."

You also might read The Harvard Salient

Quote:

The Harvard Salient
October 22, 2004

Misreporting Duelfer
Although proving no WMD's did exist, report provides verification of weapons program
By Andrew M. Trombly, Staff writer

If news headlines were the standard by which we judged truth, President Bush would be sitting in The Hague right now awaiting his war crimes trial. After all, the blurbs that appeared from the major media outlets concerning the recently released final report on Saddam’s programs for the development of weapons of mass destruction seemed to unequivocally verify the popular criticisms of the war in Iraq. “US Report Finds Iraqis Eliminated Illicit Arms In 90’s,” blared the New York Times on October 6, while FOX News followed close behind with “No Iraq WMD’s Made After ‘91” on October 7. Before we start picketing outside the White House, though, we would do well to analyze the actual report, released by chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer and his multinational team after an exhaustive period of investigation in Iraq. In reality, Duelfer’s report provides more verification of the need for action against Saddam Hussein than it does criticism.
Before delving into the report’s content, however, let us dispense with the obvious: Duelfer and his team indeed found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Though this finding seems to confirm Saddam’s acquiescence to his international commitments, it is not as transparent as it might seem. For there are two types of disarmament, each with directly opposite intentions even as they display similar outward characteristics. The first is that in which a nation’s leadership is genuinely interested in complying with its obligations and makes every reasonable effort to do so. The second, however, is that in which the leadership is primarily concerned with assuming a deceptive facade of compliance when its true objective is to rid itself of international observation, opening the door for further procurement of weapons.
Duelfer’s report places the designs of Saddam’s regime squarely within the realm of this second variety. Indeed, the very first line of the report seems to be the report’s most significant finding: “[Saddam Hussein] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.” Unfortunately, however, our nation seems so focused on justifying the war merely on the basis of whether or not Saddam possessed stockpiles of illicit weapons that the critical importance of this finding seems to have been overlooked.
If the war were only a Boolean matter of “weapons” or “not weapons,” then no impetus for the war would have existed in the first place. As we so often hear, North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states also have weapons of mass destruction, and many of these nations are suspected of having connections with terrorist organizations. That is deplorable, but it is also irrelevant. Many point to these examples as further evidence that Bush’s policy is misguided, but they ignore the uniqueness of Iraq’s situation. These nations did not annex their neighbors, lose a war, and agree to a cease-fire that forced them to unconditionally and absolutely abandon their weapons development programs. Iraq did.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 – the official version of the ceasefire that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War – was a solemn and significant commitment on Iraq’s part to disarm or else. (Recall that the elder George Bush selected this alternative over marching U.S. troops into Baghdad during the first Gulf War, hoping that Saddam would come to his senses.) It was not drawn up between two parties with similar security interests; rather, it was the set of terms of surrender that was mandated by the victors to the losers. Saddam played a malicious gamble when he illegally invaded Kuwait, and he lost.
The resolution demanded some very specific actions from Saddam. First and most immediately, he was required to “unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of [its weapons of mass destruction].” As we have now discovered, Saddam seems to have satisfied that end of the bargain, even if he did so covertly and deceptively. Resolution 687, however, made an additional and equally compelling demand: for Saddam to “unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any [weapons of mass destruction.]” In short, the Iraqi dictator was expected to divorce himself from any and all weapons programs he was executing, irrevocably and permanently. There was no room for haggling on this issue. What is the point, after all, of forcing a vicious dictator solely to destroy his existing weapons if he is simply going to rebuild them within a few months or years?
It is this second stipulation that makes Duelfer’s report vindicate the present Administration’s perception of the security threat that Saddam’s Iraq posed. If Saddam were truly committed to obeying the terms of his cease-fire commitment, he would have absolutely abandoned his programs of weapons procurement. The report paints a very different picture of his true strategy. For example, Duelfer’s team concluded, “Based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at [the time of the 2003 U.S. invasion] probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months.” Furthermore, reports Duelfer’s team, “Senior Iraqis – several of them in the Regime’s inner circle – told ISG [Duelfer’s organization] they assumed Saddam would restart a nuclear program once UN sanctions ended.” Such discoveries demonstrate Saddam Hussein’s blatant disregard for his cease-fire obligations and his persistence in pursuing options that would threaten global security.
Perhaps the scariest point to ponder, though, is how close Saddam came to blindsiding the world with his strategy of deception. Says the report, ““Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime . . . by the end of 1999.” Simply put, the world was ignoring the perpetual complaints of inhibition and obstruction from the UN inspectors in Iraq in favor of brushing the whole matter under the carpet. To those who claim that sanctions “were working” to keep Saddam at bay, consider the number of countries that remain under foreign sanctions permanently; there are none. Saddam knew that the will of the world would be drained if he temporarily placed his weapons programs in a dormant state. It was only a matter of time, and he had all the time in the world.
It took the shocking tragedy of September 11 to expunge the complacency and apathy of the 90’s from the world’s consciousness. Certainly, it is unfortunate that the path to war was laden with such inaccuracy, but much of this can be attributed to the hide-and-seek games that Saddam played with the inspectors during the last decade, culminating in the four years after the 1998 expulsion of the weapons inspectors in which the world hadn’t the faintest notion of what he was up to. Many of the surface points that the Administration presented were either exaggerated or false, an unacceptable fact with which the nation must come to terms. Surface points do not form the central justification for war, however. Instead, the main justification – which Duelfer’s report verifies – was the intolerable threat that Saddam Hussein posed to global peace. He was given more than a decade’s worth of second chances to change his ways. He refused, and regime change was the only option left.

But still, we hear the mantra: Bush lied! Bush lied!

host · 07-10-2005, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Oh, please.

Google "United Nations Security Council Resolution 687."

You also might read The Harvard Salient

But still, we hear the mantra: Bush lied! Bush lied!

MM, you're new "here", so maybe you'll only need this response once to discourage you from being more "Bush" in your defense of Bush, than he himself has been since he "threw in the towel" via his spokesperson, on Jan. 12, 2005.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050112-7.html
January 12, 2005

.............. Q The President accepts that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he said back in October that the comprehensive report by Charles Duelfer concluded what his predecessor had said, as well, that the weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence, were not there. And now what is important is that we need to go back and look at what was wrong with much of the intelligence that we accumulated over a 12-year period and that our allies had accumulated over that same period of time, and correct any flaws.

Q I just want to make sure, though, because you said something about following up on additional reports and learning more about the regime. You are not trying to hold out to the American people the possibility that there might still be weapons somewhere there, are you?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I just said that if there are -- if there are any other reports, obviously, of weapons of mass destruction, then people will follow up on those reports. I'm just stating a fact.

Q And finally, what is the President's assessment of the damage to American credibility that might have been done by his very forceful case that there were weapons and his launching of a war on that basis?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, nothing has changed in terms of the President's view....................

........... Q I'm talking about preemptive military action.

MR. McCLELLAN: Right. And that's the last option that you always want to pursue. But the President is going to continue working closely with our friends and allies to confront the threats that we face --

Q How can he do it again --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we continue to take steps to improve our intelligence. That's what the President is going to do. We have very good relationships with countries across the world because of the President's efforts over the last few years...............

.......... Q Even if the information is wrong?.............

............. Q Secretary Rumsfeld said you go -- infamously, he said, "you go to war with the Army that you have." Well, this administration went to war, when it went to war, based on information that proved to be incorrect. Does the President now regret the timing of this? Does he feel that the war effort and its aftermath and the post-immediate war conflict phase was undermined by that timetable and intelligence that was wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: Based on what we know today, the President would have taken the same action, because this is about protecting the American people. As I said -- .................

......... Q Two follow-ups. There's been quite a bit of talk that Syria might have hidden some of these weapons of mass destruction. Is the government of Syria cooperating at all in the search for WMD?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have the report from Charles Duelfer. You can go and look at that report in terms of addressing those issues, and I think the President has spoken to the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction. Obviously, if there are any other reports that come to people's attention, they'll follow up on those reports. ......

Q Scott, are you saying that the President -- it's the President's view that the WMD situation has not hurt United States credibility around the world?....

......... Q So if the information is wrong, is there no consequence?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q If the information about WMDs is wrong, as we all agree now, is there no consequence? ........

............. Q Scott, did the White House intend to, at any point, come out and tell the American people that the search for WMD was over?............

........... Q Scott, you've addressed the intelligence failures. Based on that, would the President send a Secretary of State -- Condoleezza Rice -- to the United Nations to make the same kind of case that Secretary Powell made based on U.S. intelligence?...........

.............. Q Well, to put a finer point on it, does he have enough confidence in the current quality of intelligence to go to the United Nations with it, if need be, or not -- as was mentioned, Korea, Iran, or some other --............

............. Q Has it improved enough, though, for him to act on it?

MR. McCLELLAN: He will -- he will act on intelligence that he receives to protect the American people. When we have actionable intelligence, we will act on it. And this President has acted on it in a number of cases...................

......... Q One question on Iraq. Are you worried that with your report, countries like France will gather more credibility than the U.S. in discussions in the Security Council of the United Nations? ............

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3661134.stm
Thursday, 16 September, 2004, 09:21 GMT 10:21 UK

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. .................

.........'Valid'

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.".............

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...431645,00.html
Why Bush Struggles to Win UN Backing
Inspections have found Iraq in violation of disarmament requirements, but have not confirmed Anglo-American claims of an imminent danger. Can the President still convince the UN?
By TONY KARON

Posted Thursday, Mar. 13, 2003
The Bush administration has always insisted it doesn't need UN permission to invade Iraq. President Bush has never left any doubt that the outcome of Security Council deliberations won't stop him from acting to eliminate what he perceives as an imminent threat to U.S. and allied security. When Bush first raised the issue at the UN Security Council last Fall, he did so in the form of a challenge to the international body — follow us to war, or render yourselves irrelevant. And his administration underlined the point by deploying an invasion armada and planning for a U.S.-administered post-Saddam Iraq. The two-track policy of using the UN process as a means to build diplomatic support for a war already in the making may have helped build domestic backing for an invasion — and chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has affirmed that the military buildup has been the key factor promoting Iraqi cooperation — but the sense of inevitability about the war may have backfired on the international stage.

This week's failure by the U.S. and Britain to win backing for a UN ultimatum to Iraq authorizing force if Baghdad fails to meet a 10-day disarmament deadline underscores the fact that the UN process has, if anything, weakened rather than strengthened international support for a war. Halfway through March, the supposed critical climatic window for military action is closing fast and the UN Security Council looks unlikely to authorize force against Iraq anytime soon. Nobody expected the French and Russians to be brandishing a veto this late in the game, much less the failure of the Bush administration to persuade the likes of Chile, Cameroon, Guinea, Angola and even Pakistan to declare unambiguous support for the U.S. position. And few would have predicted that U.S. vessels would, at this stage, be stuck in Turkish ports awaiting a change in heart of the reluctant Turkish parliament on making their territory available for a northern front.

Suddenly, even Britain, the Bush administration's stalwart ally on Iraq, is looking a little shaky — a fact underlined Tuesday when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested the U.S. may have to consider going to war without the British troops currently deployed alongside the American invasion force. Prime Minister Tony Blair faces a high level of opposition from within his own party to invading Iraq without UN authorization, and he may not survive politically if he goes ahead without UN backing. Failure to pass a compromise ultimatum resolution setting a longer deadline and making specific disarmament demands of Iraq will leave Blair — and possibly other key European supporters of the U.S. position, such as Spain and Italy — deeply mired in domestic political crisis.

The reason for the administration's difficulties may be, in part, the nature of the evidence revealed by the UN process. The Bush case for war against Iraq is premised on the idea that not only has Saddam failed to complete the disarmament required of him by the Gulf War truce, but that he is actively pursuing new chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs; and that these, together with what Washington insists is an alliance between Iraq and al-Qaeda, represent a clear and present danger to U.S. security.

But the inspection process has tested some of these claims, and in the process undermined the Bush administration's case. The inspectors found that Iraq has failed to destroy or account for substantial the stocks of chemical and biological weapons left over from its war with Iran, but they have found nothing to back claims of current, active chemical, biological or nuclear programs. Inspectors have made clear to the Council that they have investigated a number of U.S. and British allegations and intelligence tips, which came to naught. The inspectors are not saying Iraq has disarmed, and they're setting specific disarmament targets such as the destruction of the al-Samoud 2 missiles whose range exceeds UN limits. But the inspections have done little to support the U.S. characterization of Saddam as a growing or imminent threat to Western and Arab security. For many the reluctant Council members, a war becomes permissible only if the threat posed by the regime in Baghdad is greater than the risks attached to an invasion. When they hear President Bush, regardless of the findings of the inspection process, speaking of regime-change and evil, and of a grand design to remake the Middle East, their skepticism is deepened.

The Bush administration's patience for the UN process is almost certainly finite. Polls find that half of America's electorate is ready to go to war without UN backing and a growing number express frustration with the UN. Once the bombs are flying, support for the action will almost certainly increase. And some of the morbid symptoms of the war are already upon America — a plunging stock market, a soaring oil price and continued anxiety over terror attacks. That and the onset of Iraq's sweltering spring months are likely to create pressure for action. But that pressure may be felt more strongly in Washington than at the UN.

In late January 2003, in his SOTU address, more than a month after Iraq had presented it's data and inventory of WMD and WMD programs to the U.N.,
Bush claimed that Iraq's WMD inventory, as a justification for war, included:

1. 25,000 liters of anthrax
2. 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
3. 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent
4. 30,000 chemical munitions
5. several mobile biological weapons labs
6. advanced nuclear weapons development program
7. a design for a nuclear weapon
8. five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb
9. high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production

Here is that portion of the speech that Bush gave in his 2003 SOTU address:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html

In addition to the Niger yellow cake uranium lie, for which CIA Director Tenet just fell on his sword, there are other lies about WMD that Bush told in the State of the Union speech. Here is the portion of the White House transcript:

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week...............

Quote:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

(lower paragraph of second Powell quote on the page)
.............but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.................

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html

...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061100723.html
Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan
Advisers to Blair Predicted Instability

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 12, 2005; Page A01

...........The Bush administration's failure to plan adequately for the postwar period has been well documented. The Pentagon, for example, ignored extensive State Department studies of how to achieve stability after an invasion, administer a postwar government and rebuild the country. And administration officials have acknowledged the mistake of dismantling the Iraqi army and canceling pensions to its veteran officers -- which many say hindered security, enhanced anti-U.S. feeling and aided what would later become a violent insurgency.

Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the optimistic view the administration had of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein the previous 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," adding, "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years." As of May, the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003..............

And....yes...MM....a president who publicly declared the following, just five days after the 9/11 attacks, mimicked by his NSA chief, the following spring, when compared to what was later reported, can arguably and convincingly be labeled a "liar", and, if Wolfowitz's statements to a congressional committee, quoted above, are taken into account, and the inaccuracies in the 2003 SOTU address, Bush can arguably be characterized as a grossly incompetent leader who surrounds himself with equally incompetent lieutenants.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010916-2.html
...........Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never.............

Only later did we find this to call the president's remarks into question:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A16

While planning a high-level training exercise months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, U.S. military officials considered a scenario in which a hijacked foreign commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon, defense officials said yesterday.

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...18-norad_x.htm
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center...................

Quote:

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html
Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates
scenarios in preparing for emergencies
Story and Photos by Dennis Ryan
MDW News Service

Exercise SimulationsWashington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 — The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard.

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in509471.shtml
'99 Report Warned Of Suicide Hijacking

WASHINGTON, May 17, 2002

Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council when the report was written, said U.S. intelligence long has known a suicide hijacker was a possible threat.

(AP) Exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report warned the executive branch that Osama bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building......
(Edited to add lil "dots" between the quoted article segments.)

......"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Thursday.

Elphaba · 11-08-2005, 04:20 PM

Four months have passed since I first posted this topic, and to my knowledge the msp has yet to report on the use of a "napalm-like" weapon in Iraq. Witnesses have been coming forward to attest that white phosphorus was used in the attack on Fallujah, indescriminately killing civilians as well as insurgents. The Truthout url provided below also has a link to a documentary video.

The use of the incendiary substance on civilians is forbidden by a 1980 UN treaty. The use of chemical weapons is forbidden by a treaty which the US signed in 1997. Is there anyone here that could find justification in using white phosphorus on Fallujah's civilians, as we did in Viet Nam?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110805Z.shtml

Quote:

US Forces 'Used Chemical Weapons' during Assault on City of Fallujah
By Peter Popham
[bold]The Independent UK[/b]

Tuesday 08 November 2005

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.

On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: "US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988."

The website quoted insurgent sources as saying: "The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally banned chemical weapons."

In December the US government formally denied the reports, describing them as "widespread myths". "Some news accounts have claimed that US forces have used 'outlawed' phosphorus shells in Fallujah," the USinfo website said. "Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes.

"They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.

In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete."

"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."

Photographs on the website of RaiTG24, the broadcaster's 24-hours news channel, www.rainews24.it, show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact."

The documentary, entitled "Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre," also provides what it claims is clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets.

Fowarded by the same friend from the original post:

Quote:

11/07/05 "La Repubblica" -- -- ROME. In soldier slang they call it Willy Pete.

The technical name is white phosphorus. In theory its purpose is to illumine
enemy positions in the dark. In practice, it was used as a chemical weapon in
the rebel stronghold of Fallujah. And it was used not only against enemy
combatants and guerrillas, but again innocent civilians. The Americans are
responsible for a massacre using unconventional weapons, the identical charge
for which Saddam Hussein stands accused. An investigation by RAI News 24, the
all-news Italian satellite television channel, has pulled the veil from one of
the most carefully concealed mysteries from the front in the entire US
military campaign in Iraq.

A US veteran of the Iraq war told RAI New correspondent Sigfrido Ranucci this:
I received the order use caution because we had used white phosphorus on
Fallujah. In military slang it is called 'Willy Pete'. Phosphorus burns the
human body on contact--it even melts it right down to the bone.

RAI News 24's investigative story, Fallujah, The Concealed Massacre, will be
broadcast tomorrow on RAI-3 and will contain not only eye-witness accounts by
US military personnel but those from Fallujah residents. A rain of fire
descended on the city. People who were exposed to those multicolored substance
began to burn. We found people with bizarre wounds-their bodies burned but
their clothes intact, relates Mohamad Tareq al-Deraji, a biologist and
Fallujah resident.

I gathered accounts of the use of phosphorus and napalm from a few Fallujah
refugees whom I met before being kidnapped, says Manifesto reporter Giuliana
Sgrena, who was kidnapped in Fallujah last February, in a recorded interview.
I wanted to get the story out, but my kidnappers would not permit it.

RAI News 24 will broadcast video and photographs taken in the Iraqi city
during and after the November 2004 bombardment which prove that the US
military, contrary to statements in a December 9 communiqué from the US
Department of State, did not use phosphorus to illuminate enemy positions
(which would have been legitimate) but instend dropped white phosphorus
indiscriminately and in massive quantities on the city's neighborhoods.

In the investigative story, produced by Maurizio Torrealta, dramatic footage
is shown revealing the effects of the bombardment on civilians, women and
children, some of whom were surprised in their sleep.

The investigation will also broadcast documentary proof of the use in Iraq of
a new napalm formula called MK77. The use of the incendiary substance on
civilians is forbidden by a 1980 UN treaty. The use of chemical weapons is
forbidden by a treaty which the US signed in 1997

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-08-2005, 04:27 PM

Could perhaps the argument be made that in the circumstance surrounding Fallujah, that everyone was giving ample warning to get out lest they be viewedand treated as a threat. Do said treaties say anything against using those weapons on combatants?

Rekna · 11-08-2005, 04:27 PM

yeah i read this today. it is a shame that the only human rights our great country seems to honor lately are our own and those who aren't in our way.

Elphaba · 11-08-2005, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Could perhaps the argument be made that in the circumstance surrounding Fallujah, that everyone was giving ample warning to get out lest they be viewedand treated as a threat. Do said treaties say anything against using those weapons on combatants?

Do you believe that happened Mojo? I will look to you to answer your own questions. We have already seen in the US how difficult it is to evacuate a city. Where would you have the civilians of Fallujah go?

Willravel · 11-08-2005, 04:42 PM

We make agreements and break them without any fear of punishment. Can someone please hold us responsible for our actions? This reminds me of my college days in my child psychology classes. The US needs boundries. We need to understand that our actions have acceptable limitations, and if we misbehave we will be punished. The rpoblem is that our parents (England, Spain, Portugal, France, etc.) are no longer responsible for us. There are global organizations, but none of them have the power to hold us responsible. Until China takes our place as international police, we will be able to break treaties whenever we want.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-08-2005, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Do you believe that happened Mojo? I will look to you to answer your own questions. We have already seen in the US how difficult it is to evacuate a city. Where would you have the civilians of Fallujah go?

I don't know. I do know this place was a hotbed for terrorist and insurgent activity, being right smack dab in the middle of the Sunni Triangle. I can't remember how long they had to leave, don't know it if was ample, and I don't necessarily disagree with them for not wanting to leave their homes. But in the midst of a war, in a hotbed of trouble, if you are told that the thunder is coming and it would be in your best interest to leave, perhaps you should've.

Also I don't know if all of that having been said justified the use of these weapons, it was a sincere question.

Locobot · 11-08-2005, 05:06 PM

from www.rainews24.it -

It's hard to get any sense of scale or place from these. The allegations have shifted over time from napalm, to poison gas, and now phosphorus (which is not illegal). So now the charges are that U.S. soldiers are using devices meant to illuminate the night as weapons. The U.S. is painfully aware of the P.R. implications of targeting civilians and has avoided it where possible. Mostly though, it's going to be impossible.

It'd be great if everyone were equipped with nerf bats but...this story seems like such a minor feck of shit on the honking turd that is the Iraq war.

Elphaba · 11-08-2005, 06:09 PM

Quote:

I don't know. I do know this place was a hotbed for terrorist and insurgent activity, being right smack dab in the middle of the Sunni Triangle. I can't remember how long they had to leave, don't know it if was ample, and I don't necessarily disagree with them for not wanting to leave their homes. But in the midst of a war, in a hotbed of trouble, if you are told that the thunder is coming and it would be in your best interest to leave, perhaps you should've.

Also I don't know if all of that having been said justified the use of these weapons, it was a sincere question.

My apologies for thinking otherwise. The written statement never conveys the full intention like a face to face discussion. I think we both can agree that any warnings that were given did not include burning alive in your bed if you stay.

This is striking me full force because I was a young adult during the Viet Nam war. My first husband was a vet and he told me of his direct experiences with Willy Pete, Agent Orange, the torture of captives and government deceit to the troups and the public. We, as citizens of a great country rose up and ended it because it was wrong. I honestly believed that We would never allow something like Viet Nam to happen again. Obviously, We have short memories and do not learn from our own history.

alansmithee · 11-08-2005, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Four months have passed since I first posted this topic, and to my knowledge the msp has yet to report on the use of a "napalm-like" weapon in Iraq. Witnesses have been coming forward to attest that white phosphorus was used in the attack on Fallujah, indescriminately killing civilians as well as insurgents. The Truthout url provided below also has a link to a documentary video.

The use of the incendiary substance on civilians is forbidden by a 1980 UN treaty. The use of chemical weapons is forbidden by a treaty which the US signed in 1997. Is there anyone here that could find justification in using white phosphorus on Fallujah's civilians, as we did in Viet Nam?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110805Z.shtml

Fowarded by the same friend from the original post:

Why should using a "napalm-like" substance be news. I recently used a "napalm-like" substance to start my grill. Am I a war criminal now

Elphaba · 11-08-2005, 08:44 PM

I highlighted the news sources just for you it seems. It is a pity that you didn't actually read even the first line of either post or you would have noticed that. White phosphorus burns the human body in the same way that napalm and it's derivatives do.

You must know that a gasoline fire can be smothered in many ways. You are either pretending ignorance or simply being belligerent to suggest that gasoline is the same as WP. That argument didn't hold any substance four months ago, so I would suggest that you take that silly twaddle elsewhere. Titled Nonsense would be my recommendation.

martinguerre · 11-08-2005, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Why should using a "napalm-like" substance be news. I recently used a "napalm-like" substance to start my grill. Am I a war criminal now

we reviewed this upthread.

A Army spokesman described the bombs as functionally equivalent to napalm, noting that people in the army often conflated them because the effect is "remarkably similar."

alansmithee · 11-09-2005, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I highlighted the news sources just for you it seems. It is a pity that you didn't actually read even the first line of either post or you would have noticed that. White phosphorus burns the human body in the same way that napalm and it's derivatives do.

You must know that a gasoline fire can be smothered in many ways. You are either pretending ignorance or simply being belligerent to suggest that gasoline is the same as WP. That argument didn't hold any substance four months ago, so I would suggest that you take that silly twaddle elsewhere. Titled Nonsense would be my recommendation.

This whole thread probably belongs in Nonsense (or Paranoia), but I didn't make it, so I have to deal with it where it is. I read the stories when they were first posted, and my comment stands. And I also noted that you gave no links showing why use of white phosphorous was a war crime. Maybe it's you who should read the "news" sources.

Elphaba · 11-09-2005, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

This whole thread probably belongs in Nonsense (or Paranoia), but I didn't make it, so I have to deal with it where it is. I read the stories when they were first posted, and my comment stands. And I also noted that you gave no links showing why use of white phosphorous was a war crime. Maybe it's you who should read the "news" sources.

I did. Obviously you didn't.

Quote:

The use of the incendiary substance on civilians is forbidden by a 1980 UN treaty. The use of chemical weapons is forbidden by a treaty which the US signed in 1997.

Willravel · 11-09-2005, 10:45 AM

What belongs in nonsense is the response to the alligations. "Um, we were just using the white phosphorus for lighting....". I wonder if they read by napalm light, too.

losthellhound · 11-16-2005, 04:29 AM

Hmmm..

How interesting that today the Pentagon admitted to using White Phosphorus for lethal missions as well..

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me....ap/index.html

They state they used it against insurgents, but anyone who has seen the use in video knows you can't contain it.

FatFreeGoodness · 11-16-2005, 06:00 AM

People keep saying "Napalm was banned by United Nations convention in 1980, but the US never signed the agreement."

This is not true.

The use of napalm against non-military, civilian targets was banned. However, use of Napalm against military targets was NOT banned by the convention.
The position of the US is that they take great care to bomb only military targets. This is demonstrated repeatedly by its well known and unique practice of using precision guided munitions to destroy military targets near civilian positions with minimal casualties to civilians.
It is true that minimal does not equal none.
It is also true that when fighting insurgents, sometimes a military target may be individuals that are combatants but are also civilians.

losthellhound · 11-16-2005, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatFreeGoodness

This is demonstrated repeatedly by its well known and unique practice of using precision guided munitions to destroy military targets near civilian positions with minimal casualties to civilians.

I dont know where you are getting you information on this...

Napalm munitions (or fier bombs) are not precision weapons. They are dumb bombs.. None of them have laser guidence. They also lack stabalizing fins because the bombs have to have a tumbling motion in order to maximize dispersion..

MK77 750lb Napalm
MK78 500lb Napalm
MK79 1000lb Napalm

All the same.. Tumbling balls of death.

Throw a 2 litre soda pop bottle in the air in heavy wind. Watch the spray, then you tell me a bomb that spews fire like that that burns at 1200 celcius will provide "minimal casualties"

FatFreeGoodness · 11-17-2005, 08:10 AM

Losthellhound wrote:
"I dont know where you are getting you information on this...
Napalm munitions (or fier[sic] bombs) are not precision weapons. They are dumb bombs.. None of them have laser guidance[sic]. They also lack stabilizing[sic] fins because the bombs have to have a tumbling motion in order to maximize dispersion.. "

Please reread what I wrote. I said "The position of the US is that they take great care to bomb only military targets. This is demonstrated repeatedly by its well known and unique practice of using precision guided munitions to destroy military targets near civilian positions with minimal casualties to civilians. "
Nowhere did I claim that the US never used dumb bombs. I was pointing out the clear effort to avoid unneeded casualties by carefully selecting the munitions appropriate for the surroundings. This practice would preclude the use of such weapons as huge firebombs or "daisy cutters" in areas with nearby noncombatant populations. It does NOT preclude the use of dumb bombs, firebombs, or daisy cutters in other areas.

Losthellhound : "Throw a 2 litre soda pop bottle in the air in heavy wind. Watch the spray, then you tell me a bomb that spews fire like that that burns at 1200 celcius will provide "minimal casualties""

It is NOT the goal of bombs to "provide minimal casualties". I did not claim this. The goal of the military is to destroy the target, with minimal unintended casualties. One way this is done is by choosing the weapon that matches the requirement. It may be perfectly correct to choose a mk77 firebomb for one target, but very irresponsible to choose it for a different one. This is no different from any other weapon. You choose the weapon that will destroy the enemy with least risk to others, with "others" being both your own troops and noncombatants.
To claim that one should eliminate a weapon solely because it is not a precision weapon is silly, since not all situations call for precision weapons.
To call for the elimination of a weapon because it kills the other guy too well is silly, since that is the whole purpose of the weapon.

Clear now?

11-08-2005, 04:27 PM	#48 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Could perhaps the argument be made that in the circumstance surrounding Fallujah, that everyone was giving ample warning to get out lest they be viewedand treated as a threat. Do said treaties say anything against using those weapons on combatants? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-16-2005, 04:29 AM	#61 (permalink)
losthellhound Thats MR. Muffin Face now Location: Everywhere work sends me	Hmmm.. How interesting that today the Pentagon admitted to using White Phosphorus for lethal missions as well.. http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me....ap/index.html They state they used it against insurgents, but anyone who has seen the use in video knows you can't contain it. __________________ "Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?" -- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

07-05-2005, 11:49 AM	#41 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	stevo, the point I'm making is that the US army are so effective that someone in conflict with them would be better off striking soft targets, because they'd be able to inflict a more devestating blow as evidenced in the 9/11 strikes, the French Resistance, Iraqi Insurgency, and other guerilla styles of warfare. I'm not saying I agree with such tactics, only that they are the only effective means of combat against a technologically and millitarily superior force. If you wanted to hurt the US, how would you plan your attack? As for usage of napalm type weapons, unguided bombs and landmines, it is the indiscriminate nature of these weapons that makes their use deplorable, not necessarily the methods they use to inflict casualties on one's opponents.

11-08-2005, 04:27 PM	#49 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	yeah i read this today. it is a shame that the only human rights our great country seems to honor lately are our own and those who aren't in our way.

11-08-2005, 04:42 PM	#51 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	We make agreements and break them without any fear of punishment. Can someone please hold us responsible for our actions? This reminds me of my college days in my child psychology classes. The US needs boundries. We need to understand that our actions have acceptable limitations, and if we misbehave we will be punished. The rpoblem is that our parents (England, Spain, Portugal, France, etc.) are no longer responsible for us. There are global organizations, but none of them have the power to hold us responsible. Until China takes our place as international police, we will be able to break treaties whenever we want.

11-08-2005, 05:06 PM	#53 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	from www.rainews24.it - It's hard to get any sense of scale or place from these. The allegations have shifted over time from napalm, to poison gas, and now phosphorus (which is not illegal). So now the charges are that U.S. soldiers are using devices meant to illuminate the night as weapons. The U.S. is painfully aware of the P.R. implications of targeting civilians and has avoided it where possible. Mostly though, it's going to be impossible. It'd be great if everyone were equipped with nerf bats but...this story seems like such a minor feck of shit on the honking turd that is the Iraq war.

11-08-2005, 08:44 PM	#56 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I highlighted the news sources just for you it seems. It is a pity that you didn't actually read even the first line of either post or you would have noticed that. White phosphorus burns the human body in the same way that napalm and it's derivatives do. You must know that a gasoline fire can be smothered in many ways. You are either pretending ignorance or simply being belligerent to suggest that gasoline is the same as WP. That argument didn't hold any substance four months ago, so I would suggest that you take that silly twaddle elsewhere. Titled Nonsense would be my recommendation.

11-09-2005, 10:45 AM	#60 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	What belongs in nonsense is the response to the alligations. "Um, we were just using the white phosphorus for lighting....". I wonder if they read by napalm light, too.

11-16-2005, 06:00 AM	#62 (permalink)
FatFreeGoodness Tilted	People keep saying "Napalm was banned by United Nations convention in 1980, but the US never signed the agreement." This is not true. The use of napalm against non-military, civilian targets was banned. However, use of Napalm against military targets was NOT banned by the convention. The position of the US is that they take great care to bomb only military targets. This is demonstrated repeatedly by its well known and unique practice of using precision guided munitions to destroy military targets near civilian positions with minimal casualties to civilians. It is true that minimal does not equal none. It is also true that when fighting insurgents, sometimes a military target may be individuals that are combatants but are also civilians.

11-17-2005, 08:10 AM	#64 (permalink)
FatFreeGoodness Tilted	Losthellhound wrote: "I dont know where you are getting you information on this... Napalm munitions (or fier[sic] bombs) are not precision weapons. They are dumb bombs.. None of them have laser guidance[sic]. They also lack stabilizing[sic] fins because the bombs have to have a tumbling motion in order to maximize dispersion.. " Please reread what I wrote. I said "The position of the US is that they take great care to bomb only military targets. This is demonstrated repeatedly by its well known and unique practice of using precision guided munitions to destroy military targets near civilian positions with minimal casualties to civilians. " Nowhere did I claim that the US never used dumb bombs. I was pointing out the clear effort to avoid unneeded casualties by carefully selecting the munitions appropriate for the surroundings. This practice would preclude the use of such weapons as huge firebombs or "daisy cutters" in areas with nearby noncombatant populations. It does NOT preclude the use of dumb bombs, firebombs, or daisy cutters in other areas. Losthellhound : "Throw a 2 litre soda pop bottle in the air in heavy wind. Watch the spray, then you tell me a bomb that spews fire like that that burns at 1200 celcius will provide "minimal casualties"" It is NOT the goal of bombs to "provide minimal casualties". I did not claim this. The goal of the military is to destroy the target, with minimal unintended casualties. One way this is done is by choosing the weapon that matches the requirement. It may be perfectly correct to choose a mk77 firebomb for one target, but very irresponsible to choose it for a different one. This is no different from any other weapon. You choose the weapon that will destroy the enemy with least risk to others, with "others" being both your own troops and noncombatants. To claim that one should eliminate a weapon solely because it is not a precision weapon is silly, since not all situations call for precision weapons. To call for the elimination of a weapon because it kills the other guy too well is silly, since that is the whole purpose of the weapon. Clear now?