US used Chemical weapons in Iraq
With every passing day and news report on the fiasco that is Iraq, I become more and more disheartened about how things are going. Nothing to do with what's actually happening in theatre, but the way that ill-informed media types, politicians, do-gooders and armchair SACs that think that because they've read Bravo Two Zero & Tornado Down, they are the authority on everything and spout utter drivel ...... "Army using grenades and smoke shocker! Chemical weapons on the battlefield!" Well yes, WP grenades are the preferred method of generating smoke - it's a lot safer and quicker than sending a couple of squaddies over the top with a few damp branches and leaves and a box of matches.
The real question as far as I can see is this: Are we now going to spend the next 3 years going over every decision made, every action taken in minute detail, pulling it apart and passing judgement on why that grenade was used in this situation or that assault was made on Al MAK?
We need to accept the fact that war is a pretty ****ty business that involves some pretty nasty weapons and hardnosed tactics/decisions. If you don't want to step up to the colours and take part, don't criticize those that do on YOUR behalf to keep YOUR pretty little pink body safe.
Thirty years ago we used to worry about whether or not we'd win a war; now we worry about whether we will win perfectly. That is an unfortunate mindset that has been plastered all over the place and rammed down our throats thanks to the 24/7 media presence on the battlefield. You want to ban nasty weapons that might hurt someone, or criticise decisions made in the heat of the moment? Fine but to me that is a compelling argument for media black outs on ops - should put an end to uninformed and incorrect drivel such as we have seen in the media in recent months.
The real question as far as I can see is this: Are we now going to spend the next 3 years going over every decision made, every action taken in minute detail, pulling it apart and passing judgement on why that grenade was used in this situation or that assault was made on Al MAK?
We need to accept the fact that war is a pretty ****ty business that involves some pretty nasty weapons and hardnosed tactics/decisions. If you don't want to step up to the colours and take part, don't criticize those that do on YOUR behalf to keep YOUR pretty little pink body safe.
Thirty years ago we used to worry about whether or not we'd win a war; now we worry about whether we will win perfectly. That is an unfortunate mindset that has been plastered all over the place and rammed down our throats thanks to the 24/7 media presence on the battlefield. You want to ban nasty weapons that might hurt someone, or criticise decisions made in the heat of the moment? Fine but to me that is a compelling argument for media black outs on ops - should put an end to uninformed and incorrect drivel such as we have seen in the media in recent months.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said M01.
WP is an essential battlefield tool for the Infantry and armour as it generates instant and dense smoke to provide cover from observation and so from direct enemy fire; because of the heat created it also shields against IR and TI observation. Tanks and APCs used to, presumably still do, use it in their smoke dischargers to shield them when they come unexpectedly under fire.
If you have seen the difference in effect when the artillery fire chemical smoke, which takes ages to build up and is seldom an effective screen, and WP, which is instant and voluminous, you would not doubt its usefulness in reducing own casualties in battle.
It is also very effective as an anti-personnel weapon in clearing bunkers and rat holes where HE grenades may not be so lethal. The Paras used a lot of it at Goose Green for example.
Like all effective weapons of war the results of its use are unpleasant. I would certainly think twice about using it as a weapon, as opposed to providing cover for movement, in a built-up area where there could be non-combattants.
However, to ban it deprives the soldier of yet another effective tool for doing his job while staying alive. As an ex-infantryman I deeply resent the banning of AP mines for protecting defensive positions from covert infiltration or direct assault by enemy infantry. Well done the sainted Diana.
If the civilian press, politicians and tree-huggers want their wars to be fought using paint-ball guns, let them fight their own bloody wars and choose their opponents very carefully. I'll be happy to attend their funerals.
WP is an essential battlefield tool for the Infantry and armour as it generates instant and dense smoke to provide cover from observation and so from direct enemy fire; because of the heat created it also shields against IR and TI observation. Tanks and APCs used to, presumably still do, use it in their smoke dischargers to shield them when they come unexpectedly under fire.
If you have seen the difference in effect when the artillery fire chemical smoke, which takes ages to build up and is seldom an effective screen, and WP, which is instant and voluminous, you would not doubt its usefulness in reducing own casualties in battle.
It is also very effective as an anti-personnel weapon in clearing bunkers and rat holes where HE grenades may not be so lethal. The Paras used a lot of it at Goose Green for example.
Like all effective weapons of war the results of its use are unpleasant. I would certainly think twice about using it as a weapon, as opposed to providing cover for movement, in a built-up area where there could be non-combattants.
However, to ban it deprives the soldier of yet another effective tool for doing his job while staying alive. As an ex-infantryman I deeply resent the banning of AP mines for protecting defensive positions from covert infiltration or direct assault by enemy infantry. Well done the sainted Diana.
If the civilian press, politicians and tree-huggers want their wars to be fought using paint-ball guns, let them fight their own bloody wars and choose their opponents very carefully. I'll be happy to attend their funerals.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need to accept the fact that war is a pretty ****ty business that involves some pretty nasty weapons and hardnosed tactics/decisions. If you don't want to step up to the colours and take part, don't criticize those that do on YOUR behalf to keep YOUR pretty little pink body safe.
In any case, I thought this war had been won. George Bush told us so in 2003. So what are "we" still doing there?
And why are "we" going back to Afghanistan? To maintain the Dear Leader's hard-on for death?
From the Independent:
The debate over the use of white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah took a new twist when it emerged the US Army teaches senior officers it is against the \"laws of war\" to fire the incendiary weapon at human targets.
A section from an instruction manual used by the US Army Command and General Staff School (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, makes clear that white phosphorus (WP) can be used to produce a smoke screen. But it adds: \"It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.\"
A section from an instruction manual used by the US Army Command and General Staff School (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, makes clear that white phosphorus (WP) can be used to produce a smoke screen. But it adds: \"It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.\"
I would strongly advise those still wearing Her Maj\'s uniform not to follow the US example, otherwise they will find themselves in the dock courtesy of the Attorney-General and the supine compliance of the Chiefs of Staff.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clockwork Mouse,
I have to take issue with that. As ex-infantry myself I wholeheartedly abhor the use of mines and WP.
More importantly, having spent substantial time in Laos and Cambodia, I would say well done to Diana. If we are there to save "pretty pink bodies" then we would do well to look at not just the immediate effects of the weapons we employ but the long standing after effects (40 years and counting for the above two countries) they have on an entirely innocent young civilian population.
As for the average civilian tax-payer not being entitled to question and oppose our actions. The last time I checked I was paid for and employed by the tax-payer to protect their lives and property. If the civilian populace not only disagrees with the war we are fighting, but the means we employ to fiight it then we should sit up and listen.
I agree completely that war is a horrific business and know exactly the mess the most basic of weapons causes. That is not my issue.
Why is it on one hand we can whole-heartedly condemn and indeed invade a country on the premise they have weapons that can cause untold misery, while we are beyond question when employing similar weapons ourselves.
Iraq is long past the point where hard heavy firepower will win the war, and it was long past that point when the battle of Fallujah erupted.
The need is for hearts and minds but our actions are in reverse when it comes to achieving that, certainly in the American controlled zones.
I have to take issue with that. As ex-infantry myself I wholeheartedly abhor the use of mines and WP.
More importantly, having spent substantial time in Laos and Cambodia, I would say well done to Diana. If we are there to save "pretty pink bodies" then we would do well to look at not just the immediate effects of the weapons we employ but the long standing after effects (40 years and counting for the above two countries) they have on an entirely innocent young civilian population.
As for the average civilian tax-payer not being entitled to question and oppose our actions. The last time I checked I was paid for and employed by the tax-payer to protect their lives and property. If the civilian populace not only disagrees with the war we are fighting, but the means we employ to fiight it then we should sit up and listen.
I agree completely that war is a horrific business and know exactly the mess the most basic of weapons causes. That is not my issue.
Why is it on one hand we can whole-heartedly condemn and indeed invade a country on the premise they have weapons that can cause untold misery, while we are beyond question when employing similar weapons ourselves.
Iraq is long past the point where hard heavy firepower will win the war, and it was long past that point when the battle of Fallujah erupted.
The need is for hearts and minds but our actions are in reverse when it comes to achieving that, certainly in the American controlled zones.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett - You have hit the nail on the head! Ill informed politicians made the case for war stronger and got us into this mess. The Mod and Department of Defence embraced the media and let us have 24/7 war beamed into our houses -war became
'entertainment' . Now things are not going quite so swimmingly
the media becomes not the messenger but part of the problem.
Nothing new in that - the U.S kept it's steadilly increasing involvement in Vietnam on the quiet. By the 1970's the images
of war became starkly more dark and public opinion went against
the participation. Now we have 'ill informed' media types - the same ill informed types who were briefed by the Army on how Basrah had been taken and then it hadn't by confused Army reports. However these 'ill informed' media types were also
ill informed on the 'spikes of activity' previous to the war which in many ways were legally questionable .
Undoubtedly the media will spend the next 'x' number of years disecting the war and it's effects . Would you expect anything else ? The war has resulted in untold civilian deaths
amongst the Iraqi population - in no way can these deaths be used as a justifiable reason for us being 'safe'.
The internet is used by any number of people to put their
point of view across - I think it's patronising in the extreme to describe some posters as 'armchair SAC's ' - maybe if the government took notice of it's population and members of the armed forces we wouldn't be in the biggest terrorist recruiting drive in history.
'entertainment' . Now things are not going quite so swimmingly
the media becomes not the messenger but part of the problem.
Nothing new in that - the U.S kept it's steadilly increasing involvement in Vietnam on the quiet. By the 1970's the images
of war became starkly more dark and public opinion went against
the participation. Now we have 'ill informed' media types - the same ill informed types who were briefed by the Army on how Basrah had been taken and then it hadn't by confused Army reports. However these 'ill informed' media types were also
ill informed on the 'spikes of activity' previous to the war which in many ways were legally questionable .
Undoubtedly the media will spend the next 'x' number of years disecting the war and it's effects . Would you expect anything else ? The war has resulted in untold civilian deaths
amongst the Iraqi population - in no way can these deaths be used as a justifiable reason for us being 'safe'.
The internet is used by any number of people to put their
point of view across - I think it's patronising in the extreme to describe some posters as 'armchair SAC's ' - maybe if the government took notice of it's population and members of the armed forces we wouldn't be in the biggest terrorist recruiting drive in history.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Martin,
If, as you say, you are an ex-infantryman but abhor the use of mines and WP, then all I can say is that you must have led a very sheltered existance as an infantryman and were clearly never put in a life-threatening position in which the use of either was necessary for your continued survival.
Banning something because it is misused is not necessarily a sensible solution. Since Dunblane, possession of hand-guns is now prohibited in the UK and so our Olympic pistol team has to train abroad., but you can still buy a pistol illegally on the streets of most UK cities. Knives cost untold lives every year. Why don't we ban them too and make do with forks?
I find your remark about civilian tax-payers illuminating. You imply that, if the well meaning but ill-informed (by the equally ignorant media) civilian doesn't approve of the way we fight his wars, then we soldiers should take heed of his opinion and fight nicely. Paint-balls! If that's how you want the job done, democratically, then do it yourself but don't expect the professional PBI (who also pays taxes) to risk his life unnecessarily for you.
The reasons behind the invasion of Iraq are not relevant to this post. Most of us are grown up and realise the WMD excuse was phoney, but the leaders we voted into power made the decision for us and we, and the Iraqis, have to live with the consequences till we can sort the resultant mess out. To equate the use of WP by the americans, even in FIBUA, with Sadam's use of nerve gas against civilians, is naive and, frankly, rather silly.
It also emphasises the anti-americanism which shines through many of your posts. This does not help your arguments.
To summarise, WP is not a chemical weapon. The americans tend to be more robust in their application of force than we careful brits, but they have suffered a great many more casualties. The mistake the US military made was initially to deny it was being used and then to try to justify it rather clumsily. The media, sensing conspiracy, strike. Tree huggers embrace the cause. Result, more obfuscation than WP could produce, assisted by the likes of DM.
If, as you say, you are an ex-infantryman but abhor the use of mines and WP, then all I can say is that you must have led a very sheltered existance as an infantryman and were clearly never put in a life-threatening position in which the use of either was necessary for your continued survival.
Banning something because it is misused is not necessarily a sensible solution. Since Dunblane, possession of hand-guns is now prohibited in the UK and so our Olympic pistol team has to train abroad., but you can still buy a pistol illegally on the streets of most UK cities. Knives cost untold lives every year. Why don't we ban them too and make do with forks?
I find your remark about civilian tax-payers illuminating. You imply that, if the well meaning but ill-informed (by the equally ignorant media) civilian doesn't approve of the way we fight his wars, then we soldiers should take heed of his opinion and fight nicely. Paint-balls! If that's how you want the job done, democratically, then do it yourself but don't expect the professional PBI (who also pays taxes) to risk his life unnecessarily for you.
The reasons behind the invasion of Iraq are not relevant to this post. Most of us are grown up and realise the WMD excuse was phoney, but the leaders we voted into power made the decision for us and we, and the Iraqis, have to live with the consequences till we can sort the resultant mess out. To equate the use of WP by the americans, even in FIBUA, with Sadam's use of nerve gas against civilians, is naive and, frankly, rather silly.
It also emphasises the anti-americanism which shines through many of your posts. This does not help your arguments.
To summarise, WP is not a chemical weapon. The americans tend to be more robust in their application of force than we careful brits, but they have suffered a great many more casualties. The mistake the US military made was initially to deny it was being used and then to try to justify it rather clumsily. The media, sensing conspiracy, strike. Tree huggers embrace the cause. Result, more obfuscation than WP could produce, assisted by the likes of DM.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicely put, M01, especially your comment about winning perfectly. I would rather win imperfectly than lose perfectly. In fact, I spent many years training to win imperfectly, using nukes, napalm and other assorted nasties, and the only objections I heard at the time were from the members of the CND. I am just glad that PPRuNe wasn't around in those days because I would have been sick of the earache.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clockwork Orange - Couple of definitions for you:
Kitchen knife - great for preparing dinner .
Stab someone with it - a weapon.
Pesticide - great for getting rid of green flies
Spray it in someones eyes - a weapon.
White Phosperous - clearly a chemical - ideal for creating smokescreens . Fire it directly against people - is it being used
for the purpose it was designed for ? If there was no perceived problem with the use of White Phosperous - why was the DoD
at pains to point out that it was used for air bursts only - this was subsequently contradicted by the Artillery Magazine . Who was ill informed ? The media or the Pentagon ? It's a bit embarrasing when you don't read your own forces magazines!
As for land mines - yes great for defending fixed positions
and a technology that dates from the first part of the last century.
However with increasingly sophisticated motion sensors I guess
it's easier to have silent threat alerts than explosions in the night
that only add to the confusion of battle. A pity for those that have lost their jobs making them - I doubt many in Africa are mourning their passing however.
As for commenting on how our battles are fought - that's the right as a citizen . The fighting man is constrained by the laws of the land - choose to deviate from those rules and in many instances you become worse than the people you are trying to defeat. The law has never been far from the front line - it's now far easier for abuses to be reported and indeed images to be used to convict. Whether we like it or not should we allow members of our forces to retain their liberty if their idea of holiday snaps look like torture pictures taken by Saddam's henchmen.
Kitchen knife - great for preparing dinner .
Stab someone with it - a weapon.
Pesticide - great for getting rid of green flies
Spray it in someones eyes - a weapon.
White Phosperous - clearly a chemical - ideal for creating smokescreens . Fire it directly against people - is it being used
for the purpose it was designed for ? If there was no perceived problem with the use of White Phosperous - why was the DoD
at pains to point out that it was used for air bursts only - this was subsequently contradicted by the Artillery Magazine . Who was ill informed ? The media or the Pentagon ? It's a bit embarrasing when you don't read your own forces magazines!
As for land mines - yes great for defending fixed positions
and a technology that dates from the first part of the last century.
However with increasingly sophisticated motion sensors I guess
it's easier to have silent threat alerts than explosions in the night
that only add to the confusion of battle. A pity for those that have lost their jobs making them - I doubt many in Africa are mourning their passing however.
As for commenting on how our battles are fought - that's the right as a citizen . The fighting man is constrained by the laws of the land - choose to deviate from those rules and in many instances you become worse than the people you are trying to defeat. The law has never been far from the front line - it's now far easier for abuses to be reported and indeed images to be used to convict. Whether we like it or not should we allow members of our forces to retain their liberty if their idea of holiday snaps look like torture pictures taken by Saddam's henchmen.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brickhistory,
...
Undoubtedy so. And your point is?
Well, not exactly all of us. I certainly haven't killed any innocents as I recall, and neither would most soldiers. Those that do, those that authorise and order the use of WP in urban areas, those that set the policy that makes all inhabitants of a city fair game on the other hand....
All acceptable stuff though when wrapped in the flag of winning a terror war isn't it? Great stuff!
So those dictators we prop up, the years of bombings in Iraq and elsewhere, the invasions based on lies and the resulting death, destruction and upheaval will all be excused because in times of natural disaster we make a big show of sending support? Good to see the propaganda machine is working on someone.
For crying out loud, even the most pathetic nation seems to be able to send aid in times of disaster. That doesn't exactly wipe the slate clean does it?
I think you didn't quite catch the gist of my SUV reference. If mobile Americans (or pick any developed nation of choice) can't move out of harms way, what makes you think Iraqis existing in much more difficult conditions have the means to evacuate a town under seige?
All the above and more. In a bit of spare time I quite enjoy putting across an alternative viewpoint to the homogenous group mentality that prevails on PPRUNE. Far from sniping, aren't you happy to be presented with an alternative and very real picture to the one you perceive? Anything I post on here will have as much of an effect as writing to my local MP, so is it more a fact that my views offend your sensibilities?
The short answer, theoretically put, is I don't subscribe to the Machiavellian mentality that has prevailed in Brzezinski inspired US foreign policy over the last few decades. Without that we wouldn't be in half the mess we are today. It is that simple. Unfortunately it persists and continues to dig a deeper and deeper hole. I wouldn't support an organisation on the principal of my enemies enemy being my friend, but we see this in support for Karimov in Uzbekistan and the MEK in Iran (not to mention internally within Iraq), which will undoubtedly come back to bite us just as Saddam Hussein and the Afghan Mujahadeen did. For a laugh, perhaps the US/UK should publicly come clean over the real reasons why they went to war - this might go a long way to redressing the hypocracy we stand accused of.
As for now. There are elections, they haven't gone the way we want them, they were never going to. Accept it. Stop trying to direct Iraqi affairs and accept the fact that the encumbants have a big chip on their shoulder towards us, as do much of the populace and are NOT secular and pro-western. We never are going to be garlanded as we stroll down Haifa St as Rumsfeld promised, and denying we ever used WP as an anti-personal device isn't going to help that.
Tactically? I certainly rate the softly-softly approach of UK forces over that of the US military. WP does not fit that category. The overall problem though isn't a question of tactics and grand strategy. It is with the political reasons for us being there...this will undermine whatever is done on the ground.
This is difficult because I never approved of their being there in the first place. No we shouldn't just get up and leave. However, as I have said from the start, if a lot more work had been done in the first place at building a REAL coalition, and most importantly operating on a legitimate basis for military action, the country wouldn't be the basket case it is now. The operation could have been turned over to troops a lot more favourable to the Muslim world. As it is, we are the problem and the solution at once.
Yes. Arty on urban areas is not acceptable. Available weapons includes nukes, FAEs in urban areas. We are trying to win a war, not save the city by destroying it.
If you are a believer in the "gloves are off" approach all well and good. But don't come crying to me when the enemy use similar tactics against us.
Soddim,
The footage is there to be seen. Maybe if your news diet consists of FOX news or embedded reporters you aren't going to see it....any idea why that might be?
More imporatantly though, yes! I am clearly Ahl ul-Sunnah Wa al-Jamma. Now if you were a good responsible citizen having uncovered my darstedly plot, you would get on the phone right now (anti-terrorist hotline 0800 789 321) and report me in. If you are lucky the Met might just give you a junior deputy badge and a certificate for mummy to hang on the wall.
...
but I am fairly sure that the Pres has never specified a weapons load for any of our aircraft (nukes excluded!), much less directed a small ground unit to use WP, but as I said, I could be 'just out of it.'
Oh yeah, we are the evil ones who, all of us, go around offing innocents just for the hell of it.
All acceptable stuff though when wrapped in the flag of winning a terror war isn't it? Great stuff!
And what do they think when we do things like food/helos/$$ for hurricane/disaster relief? Same f***ing thing, so your point is moot.
For crying out loud, even the most pathetic nation seems to be able to send aid in times of disaster. That doesn't exactly wipe the slate clean does it?
I think you didn't quite catch the gist of my SUV reference. If mobile Americans (or pick any developed nation of choice) can't move out of harms way, what makes you think Iraqis existing in much more difficult conditions have the means to evacuate a town under seige?
Now, let me ask a question to you: what have you DONE about any of this? If you don't like it, have you written your MP? Have you written/called/e-mailed your PM's office? Attended a legal protest? Or is it easier to just snipe from the comfort of home?
what would you propose strategically and tactically?
As for now. There are elections, they haven't gone the way we want them, they were never going to. Accept it. Stop trying to direct Iraqi affairs and accept the fact that the encumbants have a big chip on their shoulder towards us, as do much of the populace and are NOT secular and pro-western. We never are going to be garlanded as we stroll down Haifa St as Rumsfeld promised, and denying we ever used WP as an anti-personal device isn't going to help that.
Tactically? I certainly rate the softly-softly approach of UK forces over that of the US military. WP does not fit that category. The overall problem though isn't a question of tactics and grand strategy. It is with the political reasons for us being there...this will undermine whatever is done on the ground.
Should the Coalition just leave right now?
should the troops 'play nice' and not use the weapons available to them?
If you are a believer in the "gloves are off" approach all well and good. But don't come crying to me when the enemy use similar tactics against us.
Soddim,
The footage is there to be seen. Maybe if your news diet consists of FOX news or embedded reporters you aren't going to see it....any idea why that might be?
More imporatantly though, yes! I am clearly Ahl ul-Sunnah Wa al-Jamma. Now if you were a good responsible citizen having uncovered my darstedly plot, you would get on the phone right now (anti-terrorist hotline 0800 789 321) and report me in. If you are lucky the Met might just give you a junior deputy badge and a certificate for mummy to hang on the wall.
Guest
Posts: n/a
DaveMartin,
What was I thinking? Your impeccable logic and well-reasoned arguements have completely won me over and made me 'see the light.' We ARE the bad guys in all things at all times. The gents who formerly gassed their own people and shot many,many thousands should be put back. Can we just call it even?
The masked men who blow up civilian, public places are doing good work and we should support them. And our troops shouldn't be able to use anything remotely nasty because we should be playing fair.
And, of course, I should have realized the power of pprune (silly, non-thinking American I am!). Posting something to stir up a few bored folks is so much more effective than doing something constructive like letting your elected government know your opinions. Maybe, just maybe, both your and my current administrations wouldn't have been elected, twice, if we had only harnessed the power of pprune to make the world right.
Thank you, brother, for helping me get to the promised ideological land.
What was I thinking? Your impeccable logic and well-reasoned arguements have completely won me over and made me 'see the light.' We ARE the bad guys in all things at all times. The gents who formerly gassed their own people and shot many,many thousands should be put back. Can we just call it even?
The masked men who blow up civilian, public places are doing good work and we should support them. And our troops shouldn't be able to use anything remotely nasty because we should be playing fair.
And, of course, I should have realized the power of pprune (silly, non-thinking American I am!). Posting something to stir up a few bored folks is so much more effective than doing something constructive like letting your elected government know your opinions. Maybe, just maybe, both your and my current administrations wouldn't have been elected, twice, if we had only harnessed the power of pprune to make the world right.
Thank you, brother, for helping me get to the promised ideological land.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RileyDove,
Thanks for the definitions. May I add a couple?
1. Pistol - great for shooting at targets.
Shoot at people - not on. An offensive weapon Ban them all.
2. AP mine - great for defending infantry positions.
Chuck them about where civilians might step on them - not on. Offensive weapon. Ban them all.
So logically:
3. Kitchen knife - great for cooking dinner.
Stab someone with it - not on. An offensive weapon. Ban them all.
Thank you also for the advice that landmines are last century technology so no use any more. But wait a moment, so are rifles, and how about planes, cars etc, so should we bin them all too? But as an aircraft engineer you are, of course, an expert on infantry weapons and tactics.
And you argue that WP was designed to make smoke so it is immoral to use it for another purpose, such as killing the enemy in battle. An interesting viewpoint. A shovel is designed to dig holes, but if that was all that remained between me and a hairy-arsed oppo on the battlefield, I would not expect to face criticism from the likes of you for belting him with it.
By the way, who is Clockwork Orange?
Thanks for the definitions. May I add a couple?
1. Pistol - great for shooting at targets.
Shoot at people - not on. An offensive weapon Ban them all.
2. AP mine - great for defending infantry positions.
Chuck them about where civilians might step on them - not on. Offensive weapon. Ban them all.
So logically:
3. Kitchen knife - great for cooking dinner.
Stab someone with it - not on. An offensive weapon. Ban them all.
Thank you also for the advice that landmines are last century technology so no use any more. But wait a moment, so are rifles, and how about planes, cars etc, so should we bin them all too? But as an aircraft engineer you are, of course, an expert on infantry weapons and tactics.
And you argue that WP was designed to make smoke so it is immoral to use it for another purpose, such as killing the enemy in battle. An interesting viewpoint. A shovel is designed to dig holes, but if that was all that remained between me and a hairy-arsed oppo on the battlefield, I would not expect to face criticism from the likes of you for belting him with it.
By the way, who is Clockwork Orange?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Martin,
My news diet is obviously much more balanced than yours but I have yet to see an example of phosphorus burns from the recent anti-insurgency operation that gave rise to this thread - quote me such an example.
Or in other words, piss or get off the pot.
My news diet is obviously much more balanced than yours but I have yet to see an example of phosphorus burns from the recent anti-insurgency operation that gave rise to this thread - quote me such an example.
Or in other words, piss or get off the pot.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clockwork Mouse - How remiss of me to describe you wrongly!
Indeed there are some nasty people over there. They live there - we want to make their country peaceful and law abiding. It doesn't look like they want to give up the fight - so we blast them with whatever we have . It's a matter of life death either I die or they do. Who gives a stuff if they are showered with a chemical that burns to the bone . All's fair in love and war.
Of course this doesn't drive the insurgency - the families -the brothers and sisters think it's all fair . Their parents were tortured and killed by Saddam's men - the same is happening again. It's a self sustaining process - the more you kill - the more feel agreeved about it - the more recruit.
As for land mines - well America didn't sign up to the convention on them so I guess they are perfectly happy that we get attacked and they don't ? Or isn't it happening that way? They don't seem useful in any way to defend the green zone -
maybe Kabul is easier ? Of course you can read my profile and submise that being an aircraft engineer I will naturally know absolutely nothing about anything apart from aircraft.
Assumptions are fine - you can rightly assume that I abore the
world trade in the land mine and the indiscriminate mutilation it causes in Africa . Thousands were planted in the Falklands by the Argentinian forces - little was gained by them apart from tragic
consequences for some that encountered them. Start your campaign to bring them back - I don't think you will need many sheets of A4 for the signatures.
Soddim - the use of WP was one year ago when the U.S forces surrounded Fallujah . It didn\'t exist as a topical news story until
the Pentagon and a U.S forces artillery journal contradicted each other .
Indeed there are some nasty people over there. They live there - we want to make their country peaceful and law abiding. It doesn't look like they want to give up the fight - so we blast them with whatever we have . It's a matter of life death either I die or they do. Who gives a stuff if they are showered with a chemical that burns to the bone . All's fair in love and war.
Of course this doesn't drive the insurgency - the families -the brothers and sisters think it's all fair . Their parents were tortured and killed by Saddam's men - the same is happening again. It's a self sustaining process - the more you kill - the more feel agreeved about it - the more recruit.
As for land mines - well America didn't sign up to the convention on them so I guess they are perfectly happy that we get attacked and they don't ? Or isn't it happening that way? They don't seem useful in any way to defend the green zone -
maybe Kabul is easier ? Of course you can read my profile and submise that being an aircraft engineer I will naturally know absolutely nothing about anything apart from aircraft.
Assumptions are fine - you can rightly assume that I abore the
world trade in the land mine and the indiscriminate mutilation it causes in Africa . Thousands were planted in the Falklands by the Argentinian forces - little was gained by them apart from tragic
consequences for some that encountered them. Start your campaign to bring them back - I don't think you will need many sheets of A4 for the signatures.
Soddim - the use of WP was one year ago when the U.S forces surrounded Fallujah . It didn\'t exist as a topical news story until
the Pentagon and a U.S forces artillery journal contradicted each other .
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brickhistory,
No problem, glad to have helped!
Soddim,
Clearly if you haven't seen the burns then you have neither reviewed the RAI documentary that this entire thread is based upon, nor read the independant accounts coming out after the attack on Fallujah. It's pretty simple stuff - look for it yourself. Unfortunately since it is Muslim tradition to bury their dead within a day, and non-embedded journlists were not allowed into Fallujah until long after it is difficult to come up with much more evidence.
Is not the admission that WP was used as an anti-personal weapon not enough? Definate case of burying ones head in the sand I think.
No problem, glad to have helped!
Soddim,
Clearly if you haven't seen the burns then you have neither reviewed the RAI documentary that this entire thread is based upon, nor read the independant accounts coming out after the attack on Fallujah. It's pretty simple stuff - look for it yourself. Unfortunately since it is Muslim tradition to bury their dead within a day, and non-embedded journlists were not allowed into Fallujah until long after it is difficult to come up with much more evidence.
Is not the admission that WP was used as an anti-personal weapon not enough? Definate case of burying ones head in the sand I think.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DileyRove - no offense taken old Bean!
You clearly feel very strongly about the moral aspects of the delivery of state violence. Good for you. Warfighting must not be allowed to go completely out of control, as has frequently happened in recent history. Please continue to fight your corner, but (I do not mean to be patronising) I suggest you use more logic and knowledge and less emotion. And don't expect the likes of me necessarily to agree with you.
A balance has to be drawn between what is morally acceptable in war (but acceptable to whom?) and what is not, and that will never be easy. The soldier will favour that which will do most harm to the enemy while protecting his own skin. The general public will want it to be as gentlemanly a business as possible so as not to offend its delicate susceptibilities when shown on telly. The media want a story, which implies it has to be bad news, conspiracy etc. The politician wants power and to win the next election.
The art of warfighting in whatever environment, land (jungle, desert, built-up area: tanks, infantry, armed hels etc), air, sea, is incredibly complex and very technical. Soldiers are not mindless automatons, nor are they blood-thirsty monsters. They are highly skilled technicians and deserve honour, respect and support from the society they defend at the risk of their lives. It is easy for the non-expert to draw false conclusions about how battles are fought. The crap produced by Hollywood doesn't help.
Knowledge and wisdom are needed in addition to moral principles in achieving a balance and emotion clouds the judgement. Get the balance wrong and the soldiers/sailors/airmen will consider the risks and rewards of their dangerous trade unacceptable and will become civilians. Then where will we all be? Defenceless.
You clearly feel very strongly about the moral aspects of the delivery of state violence. Good for you. Warfighting must not be allowed to go completely out of control, as has frequently happened in recent history. Please continue to fight your corner, but (I do not mean to be patronising) I suggest you use more logic and knowledge and less emotion. And don't expect the likes of me necessarily to agree with you.
A balance has to be drawn between what is morally acceptable in war (but acceptable to whom?) and what is not, and that will never be easy. The soldier will favour that which will do most harm to the enemy while protecting his own skin. The general public will want it to be as gentlemanly a business as possible so as not to offend its delicate susceptibilities when shown on telly. The media want a story, which implies it has to be bad news, conspiracy etc. The politician wants power and to win the next election.
The art of warfighting in whatever environment, land (jungle, desert, built-up area: tanks, infantry, armed hels etc), air, sea, is incredibly complex and very technical. Soldiers are not mindless automatons, nor are they blood-thirsty monsters. They are highly skilled technicians and deserve honour, respect and support from the society they defend at the risk of their lives. It is easy for the non-expert to draw false conclusions about how battles are fought. The crap produced by Hollywood doesn't help.
Knowledge and wisdom are needed in addition to moral principles in achieving a balance and emotion clouds the judgement. Get the balance wrong and the soldiers/sailors/airmen will consider the risks and rewards of their dangerous trade unacceptable and will become civilians. Then where will we all be? Defenceless.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, Dave Martin, it is not enough to assume that just because willie peat was used that it caused the death of "innocent civilians".
If you believe what the natives of that part of the World say you are as naive as the prosecutors in the recent Courts Martial of the British soldiers.
I have no doubt that the insurgents would have made the most of any imagery they could have produced - if there was any.
If you believe what the natives of that part of the World say you are as naive as the prosecutors in the recent Courts Martial of the British soldiers.
I have no doubt that the insurgents would have made the most of any imagery they could have produced - if there was any.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clockwork Mouse - I agree on many points ! I do suggest however that the forces are in the case of Iraq a victim of their superiors deciding to have a media war . Accidents, mistakes and sheer horendous events which are unpalatable to a viewing public can be either edited out or shown with greatly differing
views taken of them in the public's mind.
The conventions in terms of what can and what cannot be used are very much out of date . Maybe the time is right for a review of current weaponry and some ammendments to be made
regards their use.
My views are not anti the war as such - I am anti the spin that
got us into the war in the first place and the seeming lack of any direction that dismantled the corrupt but working police and state security services in Iraq.
views taken of them in the public's mind.
The conventions in terms of what can and what cannot be used are very much out of date . Maybe the time is right for a review of current weaponry and some ammendments to be made
regards their use.
My views are not anti the war as such - I am anti the spin that
got us into the war in the first place and the seeming lack of any direction that dismantled the corrupt but working police and state security services in Iraq.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Melchett, good point:
"The real question as far as I can see is this: Are we now going to spend the next 3 years going over every decision made..."
History (remember, that's the thing we never bother to learn from until after the event) shows that when it's a clear case of Good Guys vs Bad Guys, it's "rah, rah, team, see everyone sausage side", and off we go. The Sun can't get enough coverage of "our boys" and every stinking politician in Christendom takes personal credit for NOT slashing the Defence Budget and thus helping win the war. The Falklands and Gulf War 1 being examples of this. Nobody (apart from the usual crowd) dared to raise any type of inquiry into the Conduct of Warfare during those actions, only afterwards of course.
However, when it's Good Guys vs hard to identify brown people in strange countries (who can be sometimes good, sometimes bad, and often both) things get a bit tricky. Politicians and their fawning sycophants need to nail their colours to the winning team, and these ba$tards keep changing both sides and the rules. So how is a chap to know whether he is supporting a righteous and noble cause, or just being a lacky for George W? It's a tough problem for those with no moral fiber or backbone, so the answer is to keep raising enough questions about the legality and validity of the conflict to be seen as the voice of reason, but never go too far that you can not subsequently execute a sharp u-turn and claim to have always been in the opposite camp.
Nobody in Downing Street or the Whitehouse has been able to make a convincing case for this morass being labelled as a righteous and noble cause (despite the rhetoric) so we can expect much more inspection and review of just what the Good Guys are doing to the "Bad Guys" until they come home, or Joe Public is suddenly and miraculously persuaded that this was in terms of morally justified warfare, right up there with getting Port Stanley and Kuwait back. I'm not holding my breath for either.
"The real question as far as I can see is this: Are we now going to spend the next 3 years going over every decision made..."
History (remember, that's the thing we never bother to learn from until after the event) shows that when it's a clear case of Good Guys vs Bad Guys, it's "rah, rah, team, see everyone sausage side", and off we go. The Sun can't get enough coverage of "our boys" and every stinking politician in Christendom takes personal credit for NOT slashing the Defence Budget and thus helping win the war. The Falklands and Gulf War 1 being examples of this. Nobody (apart from the usual crowd) dared to raise any type of inquiry into the Conduct of Warfare during those actions, only afterwards of course.
However, when it's Good Guys vs hard to identify brown people in strange countries (who can be sometimes good, sometimes bad, and often both) things get a bit tricky. Politicians and their fawning sycophants need to nail their colours to the winning team, and these ba$tards keep changing both sides and the rules. So how is a chap to know whether he is supporting a righteous and noble cause, or just being a lacky for George W? It's a tough problem for those with no moral fiber or backbone, so the answer is to keep raising enough questions about the legality and validity of the conflict to be seen as the voice of reason, but never go too far that you can not subsequently execute a sharp u-turn and claim to have always been in the opposite camp.
Nobody in Downing Street or the Whitehouse has been able to make a convincing case for this morass being labelled as a righteous and noble cause (despite the rhetoric) so we can expect much more inspection and review of just what the Good Guys are doing to the "Bad Guys" until they come home, or Joe Public is suddenly and miraculously persuaded that this was in terms of morally justified warfare, right up there with getting Port Stanley and Kuwait back. I'm not holding my breath for either.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Martin,
Your naivety is unbelievable...I cannot believe you were ever a fully trained infanteer. You assume that since WP was used it must therfore have caused the death of 'innocent civilians'. We are fighting a uniformed army are we? They all look like civilians, guilty and innocent alike therefore difficult to say who the enemy are and any mistakes can hardly be laid at the feet of the military
Your assertion that Muslims normally bury their dead on the same day is substantially correct. However, do you not think they would have made any evidence available to the media. in order to capitalise? I suggest there was none.
You seem to believe what the locals have to say without any qualms. I personally would not believe what a single Muslim said in this regard. In these circumstances where Muslims are supporting Muslims, especially in a war, lying is sanctioned by this religion; it is called al Tawkiya (my spelling is at fault here before anybody starts criticising it...there are many ways of spelling the concept )
Suggest you take a more balanced view of things because what I have read in your mails is generally unsustainable.
Thank you!
NC43
Your naivety is unbelievable...I cannot believe you were ever a fully trained infanteer. You assume that since WP was used it must therfore have caused the death of 'innocent civilians'. We are fighting a uniformed army are we? They all look like civilians, guilty and innocent alike therefore difficult to say who the enemy are and any mistakes can hardly be laid at the feet of the military
Your assertion that Muslims normally bury their dead on the same day is substantially correct. However, do you not think they would have made any evidence available to the media. in order to capitalise? I suggest there was none.
You seem to believe what the locals have to say without any qualms. I personally would not believe what a single Muslim said in this regard. In these circumstances where Muslims are supporting Muslims, especially in a war, lying is sanctioned by this religion; it is called al Tawkiya (my spelling is at fault here before anybody starts criticising it...there are many ways of spelling the concept )
Suggest you take a more balanced view of things because what I have read in your mails is generally unsustainable.
Thank you!
NC43