Oh, please. The obvious things on this thread are that WP is not a chemical weapon and that you are an asshat when you debate politics. If you need some evidence of that, then look no further than your quote above.

 

I'm not sure which part you cannot read. WP is not a chemical weapon when it is not used on people, (ie, for marking, etc), but if it is used on people it IS a chemical weapon, hence the hoohar at the moment.

 

I hate to break it to you, but there is no "hoohar" except among some very desperate Lefty handwringers.

You claiming that the use of WP on enemy positions magically transforms it in to a chemical weapon(and some lefties agreeing with you) does not make it so. Even if every professor of "peace studies" agrees with you - no magical transformation will occur.

 

The Bush Administration doesn't give a flying fvck about the Geneva Convention. If the Geneva Convention says "No form of torture is permissible under any circumstances," we say, "The Geneva Convention doesn't apply in these circumstances."

All I have to say is this: The Iraq war seemed simple enough on paper, but wars just never turn out that way. I guess I agree somewhat with the idea that anything is justified to save a GI's life, but the thing is, the Iraqis didn't ask for this war. We thought it seemed like a good idea. And now we're over there engendering hatred and vitriol from the rest of the world, getting ourselves killed, killing Iraqis, and generally fvcking up. It's just a huge mess now. I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere used some form of chemical weapon against the other guys if they thought it would help them win a battle, or save their own life, or someone else's. The US's official stance doesn't mean anything on the ground over there. Ambassadors say what they want, but if it came down to getting killed by a mortar or busting a bunker with a chemical round, knowing you might hurt an innocent civilian in the process, would you take the mortar, or would you empty your arsenal at them?

 

If WP is NOT a chemical weapon, why is it amongst the charges that saddam is facing?

Can yopu explain this charge?

herein lies the vexxing.

 

you gotta link for that charge against Saddam? further, you are aware that Saddam used actual chemical weapons against the Kurds, aren't you? And I'm not talking about incendiaries.

 

Yup... Entirely aware, but that is not the issue. the issue is the fact that on one hand saddam is being tried under that charge, (as well as others), where as if the US, and UK use it is is all ok...

link where the charge is from... put 'saddam war crimes white phosphorus' in google and see what comes up.

For everyones information, this was not intended as an anti-US thread, but to have a discussion about the two-sided face of QWP. legal for some, illegal for others.


link to the full transcript...

 

Now we are getting somewhere. You have misspoken regarding a charge against Saddam involving WP. That doesn't help your credibility at all. Instead you have produced a paragraph from a radical Left website claiming to have information from a declassified Pentagon report.

Further, phosphorous is a chemical. That is not in dispute. As I pointed out earlier, the ingredients in gunpowder are also chemicals, as are countless other materials used in war. But to now claim that the US is using chemical weapons because phosphorous rounds were used to clear out entrenched terrorists in holes(not dumped on an entire city as the Left would have us believe) in Iraq remains patently ridiculous and a desperate tactic by the far Left to rally the same old hippies to the next "peace" march.

I think you need to head back to the drawing board with this one. The air is out of the balloon.

 

I have just posted the full transcript on my previous post.

All these sites, and articles are wrong... They obviously have no data, and are all talking bollox...

The BBC also disagree... as does the general...

So it WAS used as an incediary, and was used against people... As confirmed by the government, so can we stop this pretence that it wasn't. It was, so can we continue as to whether you feel it is ok to use it or not?
i know exactly what i have posted, and certainly do not need to go back to square one.

 

For a person that claims that we should be "questioning the gov't about everything" you sure do put a lot of stock in statements made by that very same gov't when they fall in line with what you believe in the first place. I would also add that for a person that says we shouldn't believe official sources, you sure do seem to trust materials from websites with an obvious political agenda.

Keep working on that.

BTW, you still have not produced anything to indicate that Saddam is currently charged with anything involving WP.