so thats where the chem. weapons in Iraq went...!Follow

So....I was wondering what the general opinion was amongst our cousins in the US (and elsewhere) now that it seems that those elusive chemical weapons in Iraq have been found?



It would seem that they have been hidden all this time in the armouries of the US forces! Blimey!! I read about this back when the boys were liberating Falluja, and put it down to ungrateful Iraqi moaners trying to stir up peoples feelings against the good and brave American liberators. And of course the denials from the Whitehouse and co. put my mind to rest.

But now I keep reading that it would seem that using munitions that burns tha skin from small children, (and anyone else who happens to be standing around the area) is considered a morally correct way of spreading freedom and democracy around the place.

I gotta say that it doesnt seem very noble or heroic to me, but then again I been against this phukkin' war of aggression since the begining.

The things that are being perpetrated in the name of the American people are getting more unpleasant by the day.....



Edited, Wed Nov 9 22:45:50 2005 by paulsol

What? you mean you havnt heard? Oh yeah, your probably in the states.

Well in the rest of the world we have this thing called a media. Wich for all its faults does eventually start telling people some stuff. (other than the sports results or stories about poodles in vermont that can tap-dance).


So you may want to look at the BBC, the Guardian news paper, no end of web sites (Information Clearing House for example) or you could do a search on Google.

Be careful tho', some of this stuff is pretty graphic. And even tho it would appear that a majority of people are waking up to the realities of this criminal invasion of another peoples land, most of you may not realise that 'real' people have 'really died, and the results of having your skin melted off by a chemical dropped from the sky is not very pretty.

he's equating non lethal tear gas with VX nerve agent. I think we can safely dismiss this one as off his medicine.

Coming from someone who can't be "*********** to provide a link...

Since our poor misguided friend here cannot be bothered to post a link, i think this is what he's talking about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

That's even less of an issue than tear gas. Sure, a white phosphorus shell will kill you if it hits you. or if you lick it or eat it or something, or play with it. but overall, between being in the blast radius of a white phosphorus shell or a real shell, i know which one i'd pick.

You obviously don't know what a white phosphorus shell is or does. When the shell explodes it spreads out thousands of blobs of white hot phosphorus that are burning at hundreds of degrees. An average bomb is suppose to spread over and area of up to 400 square meters. The higher the bomb detonates, the wider the spread. If the bomb is intended to create enough light to illuminate the battlefield, then it will be set to explode at a higher altitude to get maxium illumination. Once a blob of phosphorus hits a indescriminate target, it continues to burn for several minutes. If you dropped it on a piece of steak, that steak would be cooked in no time. So it's not hard to imagine what the outcome is when one of these things explodes over a city full of people.

So the fact that you can say that this is less of an issue than tear gas shows you know little about it.

Ummm not just 'a' website.


My point is , 'if' this story is true, then in my humble opinion, wich after all, is only my opinion, its not a very good idea for the american armed forces to be doing this.

First, because the insurgency will inevitably be hardened by tales of American forces melting the skin off of children.

Second, because the civilian population will harbor considerable resentment towards Americans for melting the skin off of their children.

Third, BECAUSE IT ******* MELTS THE SKIN OFF OF CHILDREN.

Now I know that the US didnt sign anything in the geneva convention that actually forbids them to burn the skin off of children (protocol III of the convention on certain conventional weapons), but that doesnt mean that the US as a whole reckons its ok to melt the skin off kids. And if that is true, actually goin ahead and doin something that ends up melting the skin off of children, isn't going to endear the army to the general population, of the US. Iraq or the rest of the world.

I would dare to say that if G.W. Bush thinks that the best option availiable is to fight a war in such a way that small children end up having their skin melted off, then he really should reasses his goals in Iraq.

Judging by the amount of US personnel killed in Iraq last month (92 I think) melting the skin off of children using a chemical weapon is not exactly succeeding in the 'winning hearts and minds' department.....

just wondering what you all thought...?

I have always been under the impression that unless a point, was repeated ad nauseum it would generally fly over the heads of the general public. Hence the need for bush to repeat himself, ( tho i believe in his case, he is trying to convince himself of the **** that he speaks),and the need for 'canned laughter' in sit-coms to point out where people are supposed to laugh.
I felt the need to repeat the statement "melts the skin off of children" several times so that members of the MTV generation ie. short attention spans, got the message.



I guess my repeating it worked then...?


I find the whole thing pretty repugnant, i was hopin the rest of the world would too.....or at least the people here.

Gee, you make it sound highly unlikley that you can killed by this stuff huh? I guess the hundreds of Iraqi civillians that were killed by it were just really unlucky.

It's not really a tough choice. Put it this way, would you rather be shot in the leg (which is really what bomb shrapnel is like) or would you rather me drop a blob of white phosphorous on your thigh? I'll take the shrapnel thanks. At least I know that if I got a piece of shrapnel through my head I'm gonna die pretty quickly as opposed to have a white hot chemical slowly burn through my scalp and skull and then into my brain.

The fact that you're still trying to convince us that tear gas is more of an issue shows what a ****** you are. If you're so right, I'm sure the American public would not complain if the police used white phosphorous to clear a bunch of protesters rather than the "deadly" tear gas.

Or even better, maybe the U.S. army should be using tear gas to break the backs of the Iraqi insurgents. I mean. we've seen what white phosphorous does, so imagine what tear gas will do?!!

Have you ever let off a flare before? There is hardly any phosphorous inside those things yet they can burn for quite a while. I can guarantee you that you can light one of them up, drop it off the CN tower, and it will still burn for several minutes after it hit the ground.

Sigh. How can you make a statement like that by pure speculation without even checking the statistics yourself? Think about it. Tear gas is used around the world on a daily basis. As far as we know, white phosphorous is not. Even if we searched, I'm sure we wouldn't even be able to find stats on it because why would the U.S. post them if they didn't even admit to using these kinds of weapons until recently? Even if we did have the stats, I'm sure your would find that tear gas can't even compare to the deadliness of phosphorous. Hundreds of civillians were supposedly killed by this weapon in Falujah alone. I have never heard of hundreds of people being killed by tear gas.

This is not a Liberal rant on US actions in Iraq. I'm just refuting a plain stupid comment that tear gas is more of an issue than white phosphorous.

Oh no you didnt!


Yeah, I guess you went there.

Im equating dropping WHITE PHOSPHORUS onto civilians in the liberation of Falluja as a morally reprehensible way of liberating those said civilians from the barbaric dictator known as Sadaam Hussein.
----------------------------------------------------

we did that and worse. Faujja was a search and destroy mission from the start. most of the people living there were considered insurgents, or sympathizers of the insurgents. we blocked off the city to prevent as many people from leaving as possible, then we went in with a grid searh pattern and killed every living thing that we could find.

there were no prisoners taken out of falluja. ZERO. WE burried the bodies in mass graves WE dug with heavy equipment right in the streets.

tens of thousands of people butchered. the vast majority of them totally defenseless.

and yes, we droped "non leathal" chemicals on them first to make their lives a living hell before we went in. and yes, you drop enough "non-leathal" chemical on someone, it will kill them.

men, women, children, there were no prisoners. no streams of refugees led out of the city as we encountered innocents. if it moved, it died. period. search and destroy.

war is hell. it is the devils playground. a place for satan to reep thousands of souls for autrocities done in the name of war.

and the origonal poster is correct about another thing. what americans see is vastly differant from what the rest of the world sees. our media is "filtered" very effectively. a perfect example.....

when the pentagon announced the falluja campaign, they said they were "turning back" men of fighting age trying to leave the city.

what americans invisioned: an orderly line leading up to a checkpoint that allowed women and children to pass but turned back men from 18 to 60 years old.

what the rest of the world saw: american troops shooting on sight anything that didnt look like a small child or a woman form 100 yards away. half naked teens, women and men, swimming across the efreities river, unarmed, defensless, shot in the water from the river banks by american troops. on film. not a scrap of it shown in america.

we are being spoon fed our media by the government. a vast country full of God loving people being led like a pack of ignorant sheep.

we are the good guys. we wouldnt do that. those are lies created by the enemy, or anti war fanatics. we would KNOW if we were doing that.

a pack of ignorant sheep.

YES we committed war crimes. YES we committed those crimes on a DEFENSELESS country that was not enguaged or threatening to enguage in hostilities with ANYONE. and YES, we LIED, or mor accuratly, MISSINFORNED the american people, and tried to MISSINFORM the rest of the world about our actions and intentions.

thats exactly how Hitler rallied a country full of God loving Christians living in a democratic sociaty into committing some of the worst war crimes in human history. they believed what he told them without a shred of proof to back it up.

just like the republicans in this country.

a pack of God loving IGNORANT sheep. the moral majority working for you.

If you hate it so much, why don't you move to another country?

I am sure things have happened that shouldn't have. But I also was in the army, and I am convinced 99% of the people in the army aren't going to commit something that would be considered a war crime. My husband was at Abu Gharab. He even did some prison guarding. I also drink beer on weekends with people who were a part of that Falluja offensive. They have the same reaction that I do, which is just utter shock. Broad statements that paint the army evil make me mad, for lack of a better word.
----------------------------------------------------

its not evil if its an order.

did you ask your friend who there were no prisoners taken from falluja?

did you ask your friend what happened to the bodies of the thousands of dead people?

here is what he will tell you. you bust down the doorm run in spreying fire at everything that moves, then look for weapons amoung the bodies. men? women? hell, you bust into a dark room, they all look the same.

did you ever ask your commanding officer WHY you were there if there were no weapons?

no. why? because it was an order. and if it was an order, it is not evil, because we are the moral majority. hooraa.

killing a familey driving on the street because you "thought" they we bad guys is not evil, because your orders say, if in doubt, shoot first.

tell Peter at the gate it was an order, there for, not a sin. im sure he will say, hooraaa, walk on in.