You mean I actually bother to look things up? Seems to me that regardless of what I produce, you will still feel it is not a chemical weapon, even though the geneva convention states so, which the US convieniently did not sign.
I give up. We will agree to disagree, and I shall continue to think the way i do until it gets proved otherwise.
by the way, Lt Col Barry Venable, US spokesperson, said that it had been used against combatants, which is against its aloowed use. You may want to ignore lefty websites, AND your government if you want. Its up to you.
What part of...

... Do you not find it a little odd that they call the WP chemical weapons, and as a clissified report regarding the matter you will probably ignore it also. The same chemical strikes that is being mentioned there is the same one that saddam is being charged with. It occurred in 1991 when saddam was attempting to quell the Kurdish uprising.

 

You sound like you're arguing just to argue now. The proof Toff comes up with isn't bullsh1t because he posted it, and he's from England, or because you don't believe it. First you attack him, (not the point) then the credibility of his sources (there sure are a lot that say the exact same thing) and now the consistency of the nature of his sources?

White phosphorous may or may not be dangerous, we may or may not have used it, Saddam may or may not have used it, but all there is on this thread is a whole bunch of links that say it is, we did, and he probably did. If you're going to defend America because you don't know how to do anything else, at least find some proof that backs up your advocacy of the devil, I mean devil's advocacy, because right now all you're saying is "O RLY?"

 

Cheers Yuikio! [8D] Doesn't seem to matter what I post, they don't believe it anyway. Can't be arsed anymore. I will no longer post threads that require intelligent debate, as there is no-one to debate with.

 

Yeah, well you are from Britain where everyone is poorly nourished and has bad teeth, and you have all those foreign images in your signature. I can't lie; sometimes, I'm disinclined to believe what you're saying too. I mean, cricket and soccer? WTF?

I guess even freaks are capable of intelligent discourse, even when they say things that make Ol' Glory curl up around the pole in shame.

Wait, nevermind that. I <3 American and anyone who doesn't believe our GIs are fasting for Ramadan and passing out blow jobs and Christmas Presents while shooting only suicide bombers and crazy Islamofascists and standing over the good, freedom loving citizens of Iraq (who all glow red, white and blue subtly) while they pray to Mecca over there is a god damn Pinko commie hippie dumbass sexual deviant smelly motherfvcker.

 

There are? Care to point them out? You mean the sources with a Lefty political agenda that Toff misprepresented with regards to the content? Do you believe everything you read on the internet? I don't. Especially when it comes to the people in the "peace" movement in the US and Europe. Repeating what a professor of "peace studies" thinks in a news article does not make it so.

There is nothing wrong with questioning sources if they are what he is basing his argument on. And in this case, Toff falsely claimed that Saddam was currently charged with using WP because it was "a chemical weapon". Can you produce the mystery link that backs that up? I didn't think so. Hell, I think the Iraqi people have got plenty to hang Saddam with, I doubt they will need this nonsense.

 

Foreign images? cricket, and soccer? 2 of the worlds biggest sports! I never said i wasn't a freak! it is ingrained into english children at an early age to be odd! If we weren't we wouldn;'t be able to create things Like caterhams, or Ariel Atoms! We are an odd nation, and pround of it!

 

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nitions/wp.htm

I don't see the link with your piece. Why is that? I think I know.

You looked up some far left website, told a fib about what you found there, and then think I should agree with your points. I don't think so.

Not "regardless of", but rather because of what you produced, failed to produce, and misrepresented.


I have yet to see the link on this as well. But even if you are able to find it, if I discovered that it was a part of some politically motivated recent amendments directed at the US that reclassified WP in a way never done before – then how much weight does that really carry. If the US doesn’t want to sign it, for any variety of reasons, then it is not bound by it. The US is still bound by the Geneva Conventions that is has ratified, unlike the people we are fighting that chop off the fvcking heads of the people they capture – whether they are soldiers or journalists. I’m still comfortable claiming the moral high ground while firing some WP rounds into a hole full of terrorists. You can wring your hands and make ridiculous claims filled with meaningless Lefty hyperbole. It’s up to you.

See link from Global Security above.

 

I give up...

the telegraph on the charges, and what they are limited to...

Please note that the 1991 attrocities against the kurdish people are a direct result of the WP weapons seen in the earlier transcipt.

please have the ability to see what is there in front of your eyes...

BBC website
I can't be arsed debating, (can it be called that?), anymore, as heads are buried far too deep in the sand.

 

So even thought the US saw it as a chemical weapon back in 1991 that doesn't count? So althought you say the sources I use are wrong, and lefty, you'rs are not? Again opinion is everything.

how about this opinion, seen in the 'Battle Book', published by the U.S. Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

battle book...

 

"Please note that the 1991 attrocities against the kurdish people are a direct result of the WP weapons seen in the earlier transcipt. "

You don't know that and you can't produce anything that says that. If you could, then you would put it up.

The gassing of the Kurdish people and the way that Saddam put down the rebellions post Gulf War are seperate events. I'm quite certain that Saddam did plenty of terrible things when putting down the rebellions that he can be charged with. You assuming that the charges are based on the use of WP is just that - your assumption.

And you aren't debating. You are ignoring my points. I don't know how I got sucked into this on a car forum. I won't let you bait me again with your silly Lefty bs.