Chemical Weapons - Iraq

Qark · Post by **Qark** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 7:22 pm

And quickly I point out that civilians who are armed and fire upon other soldiers are no longer civilians.

Does writing an article attacking the war in Iraq or US politics in general automatically means that a source is untrue or biased?

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:15 am

Indeed, Mark 77 bombs are basically napalm throwers.

While it's true that napalm was used to torch vegetation in the jungles of Vietnam (thus denying targets cover), napalm is effective for more than just that. It adheres to personnel and equipment. It can be used successfully in a variety of battlefield situations, and is most effective when utilized by fighter/bombers, like the stealth fighter - capable of flying low virtually undetected by early warning systems.

frogus23 · Post by **frogus23** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:30 am

This is not a 'chemical, biological or nuclear weapon'.

It is only a chemical weapon in so far as all explosives are chemicals. No hypocrisy, IMO on this front. The other hypocrisies of the Iraq war have been argued about plenty.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 8:19 am

[QUOTE=Qark]And quickly I point out that civilians who are armed and fire upon other soldiers are no longer civilians.[/quote]

I can't concur about this. The MidEast is a gun culture par excellence. Just as every male in the European Middle Ages had his weapon--whether a peasant's dagger, a pike, or a sword--so every male in much of the MidEast is expected to carry a gun. Quite a few subcultures actually view receiving your first gun ceremonially at a specific point as a coming of age ritual.

And if you're told that soldiers who killed your cousins and imprisioned your uncle, and whom you saw insulting other Iraqis in Abu Grav, are coming to your little village, what are you going to do? Invite them in to beat you, maybe rape your sisters? Insisting that all villagers with guns are rebels is just one of the major errors of judgment that's made the US hated in Iraq.

[QUOTE=Qark]Does writing an article attacking the war in Iraq or US politics in general automatically means that a source is untrue or biased?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely not, but there are some people inclined to believe the worst about the US without facts, just as there are those who refuse to believe anything but the best. Facts should determine content, but the world has been so polarized by non-factual neo-con verbiage over the last few years that only emotional verbiage, pro or con, seems to be left. There have always been cults on both sides of this, but the rhetoric is now at an all-time high.

Qark · Post by **Qark** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:09 am

That maybe. However the Geneva Conventions states that persons taking no active part in the hostilities are considered protected persons. And I quote: "Art. 32. A protected persons shall not be have done to them anything of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment. "

Therefore there's an important distinction between "civilians" who partake in the fighting and the civilians who do not. Whether or not they actually own a weapon is pretty unimportant. Perhaps one should create a new label for ?civilians? whom are no longer civil. Noncivilcivilians or something.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:17 am

I agree with fable though I disagree that the perpetrators on this are predominantly neo-con. I think this problem is bipartisan in US politics, but I digress.

Also I agree that napalm is by far not an NBC weapon. It's vector is basically contact with fire which is the same vector that many weapons used by many countries, including the US and Englan, use.

What I meant about it's use in this battlefield is that it is usually reserved for combat outside of the city so that large fires are not started accidentally. I'm not certain that it wasn't used in the city, but I just find that odd. That's not its usual application.

Also about the sources thing. I didn't say that what they say would not be true, just that it is best to find neutral sources as to not get a slanted report. You also wouldn't want to use a paper that is very Pro-US or Pro-Bush for this example.

Qark · Post by **Qark** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:40 am

The UN banned the use of napalm in 1980, the US however is not bound by this as they refused to sign the agreement. However they did in 2001 claim to have destroyed their napalm arsenal. All claims to have used napalm in Iraq has been denied by the US government, they do however admit to having used the Mark 77. The Mark 77 as pointed out earlier has remarkable similarities to napalm, but is created from different chemical mix and therefore is not defined as napalm.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:41 am

[QUOTE=jopperm2]I agree with fable though I disagree that the perpetrators on this are predominantly neo-con. I think this problem is bipartisan in US politics, but I digress.

[/quote]

You mistake me, but maybe I wasn't clear enough. I did write, "Facts should determine content, but the world has been so polarized by non-factual neo-con verbiage over the last few years that only emotional verbiage, pro or con, seems to be left. There have always been cults on both sides of this, but the rhetoric is now at an all-time high." So I'm suggesting that the neo-con policies and verbal content (remember Bush's eeriely Stalinist declaration, "If you're not with us, you're against us"?) started the ball rolling, but now the hostility and polarization is very strong on both sides.

[QUOTE=Qark]That maybe. However the Geneva Conventions states that persons taking no active part in the hostilities are considered protected persons...[/quote]

It also lays out in great detail how the parties to hostilities are supposed to act when in such areas regarding civilians. Consider article 5: "Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention...In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

In short, even civilians acting hostilely to occupying powers are expected to be given due process by law, and treated as protected persons under the Conventions.

[QUOTE=Qark]Therefore there's an important distinction between "civilians" who partake in the fighting and the civilians who do not. Whether or not they actually own a weapon is pretty unimportant. Perhaps one should create a new label for ?civilians? whom are no longer civil. Noncivilcivilians or something.[/quote]

Levity in the face of hundreds of people being killed in a town "to eliminate rebel elements" is uncalled for. Would you defend your own family if your city was under attack by a foreign occupying force? How amusing do you think killing you would be? And how would your death as a "non-civil-civilian" affect your loved ones and friends, assuming they survived? The death of civilians--whether they lie down and put their hands over their heads, or protect their families--can never reasonably be a subject for humor, in my opinion.

Qark · Post by **Qark** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 10:08 am

If my jest offended you then I'm sorry. But it was not a jest on the expense of the fallen, rather a jest directed toward our society in general. How messed up is our society when we can give ourselves the right to kill other human beings simply by giving them labels. And that the Geneva Convention which was created to try to make war less horrific and more "honorable" is by the military leaders of today apparently considered an obstacle to be overcome. The only thing marginally protecting the people of Iraq is the Geneva Conventions and I would wager that without it the loss of innocent lives would be much higher.

Further more I retain the personal right to use levity in any situation that I desire. Either to make a point, or to simply make fun of either myself or any other individual or group that I choose. All others are of course permitted to do the same.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 10:17 am

@Quark, If the UN had intended to ban all such weapons, they should have provided verbiage for that like all good lawmakers do. Also, there may be differences that you are not aware of, my background does not give me that information and I don't know what yours is, so I cannot comment there.

@fable, Sorry for the mistake. Basically what you are saying id that the administration has made the liberals so mad that they aren't thinking properly and that makes the other cons mad so they aren't thinking properly and now nothing gets done except fighting. Except that there is a conservative majority so a little gets done I guess.

Basically the rules of the convention aside, someone shoots at you, you shoot back. It's hard to get in much trouble that way. I know that's oversimplified, but it works out most of the time in practice.

I don't want to make light of the cost of war, they are great. I also don't want to debate whether we should be there or not. It's a moot point for this discussion. What I will say is that an enemy is an enemy, whether that person is an Al'Quaida terrorist, a Saddam regimist, or an honest civilian who was brainwashed by Saddam into hating the US and shoots at us. It's unfortunate, but you can't treat threats any other way. I do agree though that napalm and the like is not appropriate for this type of action. Assuming our guesses about it's application are correct that is.

Qark · Post by **Qark** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 10:39 am

jopperm2 wrote:@Quark, If the UN had intended to ban all such weapons, they should have provided verbiage for that like all good lawmakers do. Also, there may be differences that you are not aware of, my background does not give me that information and I don't know what yours is, so I cannot comment there.

I can not understand what you are trying to say. Doesn't "verbiage" mean to use more words than necessary? Secondly the UN did create a resolution in 1980 banning the use of napalm, I'll try to find a link to the exact resolution later this weekend. However in Resolution 1996/16 it states:

"Urges all States to be guided in their international policies by the need to curb the production and spread of weapons of mass destruction and indiscriminate effect, in particular, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium.

How would you like them to put it? Just because your media doesn't report about the resolutions passed by the UN doesn't mean that the UN doesn't pass resolutions.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 10:54 am

@ Quark, First of all, our media does report UN resolutions, in fact, a lot of them are passed here in America.

On verbiage, I was referring to the other usage of the term. Meaning there should be language used to express that. In the quote from the resolution you provided they did provide such. "weapons . . . of indiscriminant effect" is the language in question. Though, I do not know specifically if the bomb in question falls under this category. However, since the US does not recognize this resolution that point is moot.

Edit: I just found out from a colleague of mine who was an instructor for the Marine Corps that the bomb in question is often used in desert environments outside of cities where there is no flamable material that could be accidentally ignited. They use the weapon to hit Isolated enemy camps and armored vehicle convoys. It is highly effective at taking out the entire grouping in one shot as to not provide for return fire or escape. This is the reason that the US didn't ratify that resolution. We usually don't sign resolutions that include weapons with practical applications outside the scope of the resolution. In this exaple the weapon is not being used with indiscriminant effect. Just thouhg tthat info would add to this post.

Qark · Post by **Qark** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:02 am

And yet the US is a member of the UN are they not? If find it kind of hypocritical to be a member of an organization that they even helped create without recognizing and adhering to its resolutions.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:19 am

California is a member of the US but it, and some other states, have tried to legalize marijuana when the US has banned it. You will see many of these types of things in government. Especially in loose governments called confederations like the UN, NATO, EU, etc. and notice that the resolution you posted "Urges" the non-use of these weapons. It may be hypocritical in some respects, I'm not sure about the specifics of the UN Charter, but I don't think all members are bound to ratify all resolutions.