Us Army used " Chemical wapon " in Falluja ?

[Boogski]

Originally Posted by voltaires_priest

The US Defence Department apparently counted WP as a chemical weapon when Saddam was using it on the Kurds. Buncha bloody commies that they are

Or does it stop being a chemical weapon when US armed forces use it?

I see. The ol' 'US military = Saddam' argument, eh?

Save it. For one thing, Saddam INTENTIONALLY targeted Kurdish civilians, whereas the US military goes to great lengths (and expense) to avoid civilian casualties.

Are you saying the Defense Department cited Saddam for using WP against the Kurds? I'll need your help to show me where. If it's true, it was probably because he intentionally targeted Kurdish civilians like he did with Mustard gas and Nerve agents such as sarin, tabun, and VX. Of course, to liberal apologists/pacifists, it doesn't matter how weapons are used. Just that they were used at all.

[aswad]

Iraq' s war has been done only for oil.
The other cause they said, are only excuses.

There is only 1 word behind this war : oil.

[voltaires_priest]

Originally Posted by Boogski

I see. The ol' 'US military = Saddam' argument, eh?

Save it. For one thing, Saddam INTENTIONALLY targeted Kurdish civilians, whereas the US military goes to great lengths (and expense) to avoid civilian casualties.

Are you saying the Defense Department cited Saddam for using WP against the Kurds? I'll need your help to show me where. If it's true, it was probably because he intentionally targeted Kurdish civilians like he did with Mustard gas and Nerve agents such as sarin, tabun, and VX. Of course, to liberal apologists/pacifists, it doesn't matter how weapons are used. Just that they were used at all.

When have I ever said the US military equals Saddam? You're answering the point you wish I'd made, rather than the one I actually wrote.

I guess you can take the boy out of THE, but...

The argument was about white phosphorous. You've already gone from saying "it's not a chemical weapon" to "ok maybe it is a chemical weapon but our troops only used it by accident and besides if you question the war you're a 'liberal pacifist/apologist'".

I rather doubt that there was "no intention" to use WP. I've seen no indication of that - all of the official responses have been justifications not denials of intent. Anyhow, it is a chemical weapon, and armies are not little children - "it was an accident daddy" isn't an adequate excuse.

I also wish the right would get over this notion that anyone who opposes or even questions the war is an "apologist for Saddam/pacifist/commie" (or whatever, delete as appropriate. Again, this had currency during the emotionally charged early days of the war (especially when Dick Cheney used to be so fond of invoking the victims of 9/11 in order to score political points). But is doesn't work now. The site of some in-bred GOP congressman (I forget which one) calling John Murtha a "communist" and then having to back off when the usual dittohead applause didn't happen, was a sight to behold. Murtha is a good man - a soldier, a patriot, and cheap attacks from some bug-eyed right-wing loon just didn't bite. Also, witness how Cheney's snarling and growling just doesn't reach the parts it used to

Now the right has to justify the war on the basis of cold facts, without recourse to McCarthyite emotionalism, flag-waving or the invokation of dead innocents, its case is falling apart. Interesting, no?



V

[Hattushil]

Thanks for eloquently summerizing the realities regarding the war in Iraq Volt.....

I hope the young state, USA will realise one day that having most destructive war machine in the world may not be enough to win a war....

Yeah, you may be able to kill successfully, you may have the highest war technology in all times but this still may not be enough to win a victory as it is proven in Iraq....Killing is one thing, winning a victory is another....The American population is still in the warm days of the war in Iraq though, i have doubt that they have realised yet what their government is currently doing in Middle East...I think it will take very long time of the decent Americans to clean the s.hit caused by the Neocons beause the level of current anti-Americanism in the world is amazing....Furthermore, it seems to me that the withdrawal of the USA troops will not resolve the problems in Iraq, it is too late to consider this option because such a withdrawal will definatelly result a divided Iraq which means a long lasting instability in Middle East....Unfortunatelly the vacuum left in Iraq after Saddam is much more than it was estimated at the beginning...It is really difficult to find an accurate solution now...May be, USA should admit the disgrace and clearly announce that they are not able to handle the current problems in Middle East although it was caused by their totally wrong world politics....And then they can invite the international community to handle the problems in Middle East...They then have to pay for every destruction they caused in Iraq (of course, under control of UN)...The horrible experience in Iraq proves that the world still need UN which should have much more authority than its current authority...

[Boogski]

The UN was in Iraq before and the "insurgents" blew them up, remember Hattushil? The US is already paying for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Volt,

Please stop with the 'when did I say this or that?' stuff. Trying to equate the US military with Saddam is where all this WP nonsense originated. It's just an attempt by (some) people on your side of the argument to discredit the US military and paint them as hypocrites. OF COURSE the US military intended to use WP. But they didn't intentionally target civilians like some on your side are suggesting. I haven't seen that Italian movie yet but it's my understanding that it portrays the US as targeting civilians.