US used Chemical weapons in Iraq
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutcracker - Interestingly enough - when we started the war against Iraq we didn't really have any great problems identifying
the enemy. They were either Iraqi armed forces or government forces. By dismantling the standing Iraqi army we actually created a void for the insurgency. So in many ways we are a victim of our own success.
the enemy. They were either Iraqi armed forces or government forces. By dismantling the standing Iraqi army we actually created a void for the insurgency. So in many ways we are a victim of our own success.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Resistance is futile
Ah NC43,
When will you give up your dealing with the facts as they are?
Please come join brother Martin and I in the poppy fields of "how they should be." Where all things done by the military and/or the government are bad, doubly so if it is the Americans.
In your world, the terrorists are simply ruthless, bloody minded thugs. In ours, they are fighting to rid their country, nay, the world of oppression from the nasty Western Civilization.
Please, come join us. You save oh so much time not dealing with reality. It really is quite lovely here.
When will you give up your dealing with the facts as they are?
Please come join brother Martin and I in the poppy fields of "how they should be." Where all things done by the military and/or the government are bad, doubly so if it is the Americans.
In your world, the terrorists are simply ruthless, bloody minded thugs. In ours, they are fighting to rid their country, nay, the world of oppression from the nasty Western Civilization.
Please, come join us. You save oh so much time not dealing with reality. It really is quite lovely here.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC43,
In one breath you dispute that civilians were killed and in the next you try to justify it. Ironicly, you are only denying what the Pentagon has already admitted.
Despite always ending up repeating myself, I reiterate: men of fighting age were not allowed to leave Fallujah. Many other men, women, children, elderly or ill simply could not. Some 50,000 - 100,000 residents were left in Fallujah at the time of the attack (some 20% to 30% of homes in Fallujah were destroyed).
Were they all insurgents? By your rationale, because they dress like civilians/insurgents they are fair game. That is the kind of twisted moral vacuum that permits genocide, and is a far cry from the morality and leadership examples I was taught.
Tell me, just who can we blame for the deaths of civilians not allowed to flee? If it isn't the fault of the people who killed them, who can we blame? Are we not responsible for where our weapons fall?
Press outside of mainstream Western media HAVE been reporting WP use in Fallujah for over a year. Just because it hasn't registered on your radar screen doesn't mean it hasn't been occurring.
A quick search on the internet -
"Dahr Jamail, speaking on Democracy Now!, November 2004:
"I have interviewed many refugees over the last week coming out of Fallujah at different times from different locations within the city. The consistent stories that I have been getting have been refugees describing phosphorus weapons, horribly burned bodies, fires that burn on people when they touch these weapons, and they are unable to extinguish the fires even after dumping large amounts of water on the people. Many people are reporting cluster bombs, as well. And these are coming from the camps that I have been to, different people who have emerged from Fallujah anywhere from one week ago up to on through up toward near the very beginning of the siege.""
At the time the reports as above were coming out they were written off in the same way you apparently write off Muslim comments - biased propaganda. If you had by chance heard them then you wouldn't have believed them would you? You hear what you want to hear.
No, I maintain a healthy skepticism. But having followed this issue for some time it has been quite apparent for a long time there was substance to the allegations. If you aren't going to believe what someone has to say on account of their religion, then your true bias is showing through more than any I might hold. As an aside, not every Iraqi reporting news is a Muslim, nor every reporter Middle Eastern.
Despite your proclamaition of disbelief, I presume you were quite happy to believe what certain Muslims said about WMD? Is there a selective logic to be employed when believing what a Muslim says? The unpalletable is untrue, the palletable is true?
Perhaps you could strike a bit more balance. I have my views, but in this matter I am not damning an entire nation, army or section of society. I am damning the use of WP in combat as an anti-personel device, and I am damning those who order, carry out its deployment and justify its use in the context it was used.
This is an observation, not a criticism, and although primarily aimed at Mr. Brickhistory, it would equally seem to apply to yourself: You both seem to take the above as being a personal attack on the military and the nation (and apparently even yourselves), even when the terms of reference I am using, the event I am referring to is one apparently isolated incident in time and location. The apparent insecurity and inability to recognise criticism where it is due is astounding, reminiscent of buck-passing of the worst kind.
I would recomend you rise above your OWN biases and look to accept responsbility or at least where blame may lie when a wrongdoing or immoral acts has occurred.
And in response to your first line; rifleman/infantry sig to be precise. I've watched WP flares come down and my own WP trip flares go up. I've carried the stuff for weeks on end. Spare me the macho chest beating of who's been there harder, and therefore has the monopoly on a viewpoint.
In one breath you dispute that civilians were killed and in the next you try to justify it. Ironicly, you are only denying what the Pentagon has already admitted.
Despite always ending up repeating myself, I reiterate: men of fighting age were not allowed to leave Fallujah. Many other men, women, children, elderly or ill simply could not. Some 50,000 - 100,000 residents were left in Fallujah at the time of the attack (some 20% to 30% of homes in Fallujah were destroyed).
Were they all insurgents? By your rationale, because they dress like civilians/insurgents they are fair game. That is the kind of twisted moral vacuum that permits genocide, and is a far cry from the morality and leadership examples I was taught.
Tell me, just who can we blame for the deaths of civilians not allowed to flee? If it isn't the fault of the people who killed them, who can we blame? Are we not responsible for where our weapons fall?
Press outside of mainstream Western media HAVE been reporting WP use in Fallujah for over a year. Just because it hasn't registered on your radar screen doesn't mean it hasn't been occurring.
A quick search on the internet -
"Dahr Jamail, speaking on Democracy Now!, November 2004:
"I have interviewed many refugees over the last week coming out of Fallujah at different times from different locations within the city. The consistent stories that I have been getting have been refugees describing phosphorus weapons, horribly burned bodies, fires that burn on people when they touch these weapons, and they are unable to extinguish the fires even after dumping large amounts of water on the people. Many people are reporting cluster bombs, as well. And these are coming from the camps that I have been to, different people who have emerged from Fallujah anywhere from one week ago up to on through up toward near the very beginning of the siege.""
At the time the reports as above were coming out they were written off in the same way you apparently write off Muslim comments - biased propaganda. If you had by chance heard them then you wouldn't have believed them would you? You hear what you want to hear.
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.
Despite your proclamaition of disbelief, I presume you were quite happy to believe what certain Muslims said about WMD? Is there a selective logic to be employed when believing what a Muslim says? The unpalletable is untrue, the palletable is true?
Suggest you take a more balanced view of things because what I have read in your mails is generally unsustainable.
This is an observation, not a criticism, and although primarily aimed at Mr. Brickhistory, it would equally seem to apply to yourself: You both seem to take the above as being a personal attack on the military and the nation (and apparently even yourselves), even when the terms of reference I am using, the event I am referring to is one apparently isolated incident in time and location. The apparent insecurity and inability to recognise criticism where it is due is astounding, reminiscent of buck-passing of the worst kind.
I would recomend you rise above your OWN biases and look to accept responsbility or at least where blame may lie when a wrongdoing or immoral acts has occurred.
And in response to your first line; rifleman/infantry sig to be precise. I've watched WP flares come down and my own WP trip flares go up. I've carried the stuff for weeks on end. Spare me the macho chest beating of who's been there harder, and therefore has the monopoly on a viewpoint.
Last edited by Dave Martin; 21st Nov 2005 at 01:02.
So in a nutshell; it isn't a chemical weapon in the sense of other chemical weapons but it is a chemical weapon if it isn't used for making smoke unless it is used on enamy combatants and not civillians? And the Pentagon should have known that? That and that any weapon is made of chemicals of some sort unless they aren't? So it's not what you've got but how you use it? And where?
Simple.
Simple.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DM
Magnesium, not phosphorus.
Looking back over this thread I am amazed by the amount of density and obfuscation generated. As the discussions have been about DU and WP I suppose that is entirely appropriate.
There has been a lot of emotion clouding judgement, and some not very pretty inter-national slurs. However, I think that most of us, whichever side we appear to come down on, agree the basic facts and principles:
1. WP is not a CW.
2. Its use on the battlefield is legal, provided it is used in accordance with the accepted rules of armed conflict and non-combatant (note my avoidance of the term "civilian") casualties are minimised when using it.
3. Its use in FIBUA will always be controversial and a tough decision for the leader on the ground.
4. The US Pentagon handled the publicity engendered by the news report very clumsily and made errors of fact.
5. The way the Allies are prosecuting combat in Iraq is in no way comparable to what Saddam Hussein did when he was in power.
6. The US and UK politicians were guilty of deceit and stupidity in the run up to GW2 and were criminally negligent in their lack of coherent planning and preparations for its aftermath.
7. As usual it's the PB servicemen and women who are carrying the can and paying with their lives until the mess created by the politicians is sorted out.
8. The press and civilians know the square root of FA about tactical warfighting and are not QUALIFIED to pass judgement on how it is done.
9. This should not, however, prevent them having their say, and we would all, of course, be prepared to die to protect their democratic right to do just that.
10. However, military decisions affecting soldiers' lives should not be based on public opinion.
Now can we all be friends?
Magnesium, not phosphorus.
Looking back over this thread I am amazed by the amount of density and obfuscation generated. As the discussions have been about DU and WP I suppose that is entirely appropriate.
There has been a lot of emotion clouding judgement, and some not very pretty inter-national slurs. However, I think that most of us, whichever side we appear to come down on, agree the basic facts and principles:
1. WP is not a CW.
2. Its use on the battlefield is legal, provided it is used in accordance with the accepted rules of armed conflict and non-combatant (note my avoidance of the term "civilian") casualties are minimised when using it.
3. Its use in FIBUA will always be controversial and a tough decision for the leader on the ground.
4. The US Pentagon handled the publicity engendered by the news report very clumsily and made errors of fact.
5. The way the Allies are prosecuting combat in Iraq is in no way comparable to what Saddam Hussein did when he was in power.
6. The US and UK politicians were guilty of deceit and stupidity in the run up to GW2 and were criminally negligent in their lack of coherent planning and preparations for its aftermath.
7. As usual it's the PB servicemen and women who are carrying the can and paying with their lives until the mess created by the politicians is sorted out.
8. The press and civilians know the square root of FA about tactical warfighting and are not QUALIFIED to pass judgement on how it is done.
9. This should not, however, prevent them having their say, and we would all, of course, be prepared to die to protect their democratic right to do just that.
10. However, military decisions affecting soldiers' lives should not be based on public opinion.
Now can we all be friends?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clockwork Orange,
You may be right, but I distinctly recall phosphorous being referred to with trip flares, plus sand, mud not water being the only way to remove it......M49 I think it was.
Yes, the issue is emotive, but your point 5 is also emotive and not relevent to the facts you put forward wouldn't you agree? I query this as it is often used as a justification.
Regarding the press; a number of reporters are also experienced ex-soldiers, now operating with a greater historical understanding (although subject to editorial policy). Naturally some have no understanding of things military. At the same time I'm sure you'll agree that pure military indoctination can lead to a biased viewpoint in itself, not to mention a heavily censored one. Seeing more sides to the argument than a purely military one may better qualify certain sections of the press to make judgements of proportion. It is more than just letting them have their say - they can have a very important say. The day when the military dictates public opinion and therefore support for a war is not one I look forward to.
You may be right, but I distinctly recall phosphorous being referred to with trip flares, plus sand, mud not water being the only way to remove it......M49 I think it was.
Yes, the issue is emotive, but your point 5 is also emotive and not relevent to the facts you put forward wouldn't you agree? I query this as it is often used as a justification.
Regarding the press; a number of reporters are also experienced ex-soldiers, now operating with a greater historical understanding (although subject to editorial policy). Naturally some have no understanding of things military. At the same time I'm sure you'll agree that pure military indoctination can lead to a biased viewpoint in itself, not to mention a heavily censored one. Seeing more sides to the argument than a purely military one may better qualify certain sections of the press to make judgements of proportion. It is more than just letting them have their say - they can have a very important say. The day when the military dictates public opinion and therefore support for a war is not one I look forward to.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DM and Riley Dove.
Thank you Clockwork Mouse. I noted the comment by DM a propos the use of WP flares and wondered about which army DM had served. Certainly I am not aware that the Brit Army has these devices and if DM could tell me where they are to be found and in which army, I should be happy to be corrected.
Riley Dove. I am aware that the enemy had uniforms before and therefore the ident process was simple. Nowadays the enemy are indistinguishable from the rest of the civillian population. Of course this does create a problem and the army are put at a disadvantage. As for DM's comment that: 'In one breath you dispute that civilians were killed and in the next you try to justify it' What I said was that: were these deaths caused by WP I am certain the insurgents would have provided much evidence about these deaths.
DM. ''Were they all insurgents? By your rationale, because they dress like civilians/insurgents they are fair game. That is the kind of twisted moral vacuum that permits genocide, and is a far cry from the morality and leadership examples I was taught''.
We are, in the main, responsible for where our weapons fall and the insurgents are equally responsible for their actions and lurking about mosques and moving about the population at large when doing our lads mischief. They do this because we are responsible people and at least attempt to be selective in our actions. It's the same as putting an anti aircraft gun in a schoolyard or hospital grounds. One cannot ignore the weapon system and regrettably innocent people will be killed as a result. I should have thought that a group of people ('innocent civilians') in the close vicinity of another group of people who are actively intent on doing our people mischief could be injured or killed in any response. My first responsibility would be for the safety of my men; everything else would be secondary. If this meant that I would have to have used WP grenades, then yes, I would have used them. The niceties of whether they should or should not have been used could and probably would be discussed later (they were on issue about thirty years ago). If WP was not used indiscriminately then it is difficult to believe that culpability rests with our people in this instance. If I believed that our people were indiscriminatly killing the Iraqi population do you not think I would be voicing protests along with all the other people you seem to knock?
As for the use of WP. I would actually be surprised if they had not been using it...so what, it is not proscribed and I don't have a problem with it being used but I would have a problem if it were used indiscriminately as you seem to suggest, and I repeat: I think that the insurgents would have certainly found some way of showing that it was respponsible for the deaths that it is alleged to have caused.
As for what Dahr Jamail said or did not say I cannot comment and I would not automatically disregard what had been said...I imagine that would be negligent, but I would have to use my judgement as to whether I believed it, or not. DM. Just for the record...I am biased against fundamentalist Islam, very biased, not because it is another person's religion but because it is a fascist creed, but I am certainly not against Muslims per se (just as I might have been biased against Naziism but not against Germans).
''Is there a selective logic to be employed when believing what a Muslim says?''
My logic in this regard is based on their own writings where lying is sanctioned in Islam (perhaps you did not see the HARDTALK programme on the BBC recently...it would have been quite instructive for you). It is sanctioned in a number of circumstances:
1. During war.
2. In support of one Muslim by another, especially where infidels are concerned.
3. During attempted proselytisation.
If you still think my logic is selective in not believing what they say, I assure you it is not a problem in the slightest degree for me. If you think otherwise in your dealings with them then that could be a problem for you. Consider the points above in any reply and do not take it to mean what you want it to mean...point no 2 is especially petinent.
However, a digression: I was in Somalia serving the UN in 1994 when a Pakistani convoy knocked an Australian vehicle driven by an army n.c.o.off the road. They did not stop and after I checked that the Australian was OK stopped the convoy and asked why they had not stopped to render assistance. They denied they had even knocked the car off the road and every single driver supported the perpetrator. They swore on their Islamic oath...as it happens, a Bangladeshi captain arrived and took control. Despite the UN white paint over the Pak army truck and despite Pak army paint being all over the Australian vehicle they still denied any involvement. I was not the only witness...this was the first time I was alereted to the concept of al Tawkiya (sanctioned lying by Islam), both visually and vocally by the Bangladeshi army officer (who was also of the Muslim civilisation). You seem to conveniently ignore what I did or did not say...I was very careful to use the words: 'in this regard'. Again you write: ''Spare me the macho chest beating of who's been there harder, and therefore has the monopoly on a viewpoint''...don't think I even mentioned it...so, in this regard, DN, I do not hear what I want to hear and certainly not mean things what I want them to mean....that I leave to the Mad Hatter at tea parties and seemingly, to yourself..
As for WMD. It would seem that Saddam was correct when he said he had none at the time. His track record up to that point would suggest him to be the mother of all great liars, TB, GWB, the Clintons, et al, and most of his (SH's) generals disbelieved him as well...they all thought he had WMD. Sure, I thought he had WMD, but it would seem that we were wrong and that the French and Germans were correct. Unpallatable but true.
You suggest that your mail was but an observation of an 'isolated incident in time and location'' and elsewhere that you have 'followed this issue for some time it has been quite apparent for a long time there was substance to the allegations'. Is there perhaps a contradiction here, an obsession perhaps?
Just for the record. I believe I have seen you on TV where you were working on AP mine clearance in Laos as well as in the Balkans, that you, if it is you, are doing a splendid job and one wishes you well. The fact that these weapons were sown so indiscriminately says much about the sowers and their attitudes than about the weapons.
NC43
Thank you Clockwork Mouse. I noted the comment by DM a propos the use of WP flares and wondered about which army DM had served. Certainly I am not aware that the Brit Army has these devices and if DM could tell me where they are to be found and in which army, I should be happy to be corrected.
Riley Dove. I am aware that the enemy had uniforms before and therefore the ident process was simple. Nowadays the enemy are indistinguishable from the rest of the civillian population. Of course this does create a problem and the army are put at a disadvantage. As for DM's comment that: 'In one breath you dispute that civilians were killed and in the next you try to justify it' What I said was that: were these deaths caused by WP I am certain the insurgents would have provided much evidence about these deaths.
DM. ''Were they all insurgents? By your rationale, because they dress like civilians/insurgents they are fair game. That is the kind of twisted moral vacuum that permits genocide, and is a far cry from the morality and leadership examples I was taught''.
We are, in the main, responsible for where our weapons fall and the insurgents are equally responsible for their actions and lurking about mosques and moving about the population at large when doing our lads mischief. They do this because we are responsible people and at least attempt to be selective in our actions. It's the same as putting an anti aircraft gun in a schoolyard or hospital grounds. One cannot ignore the weapon system and regrettably innocent people will be killed as a result. I should have thought that a group of people ('innocent civilians') in the close vicinity of another group of people who are actively intent on doing our people mischief could be injured or killed in any response. My first responsibility would be for the safety of my men; everything else would be secondary. If this meant that I would have to have used WP grenades, then yes, I would have used them. The niceties of whether they should or should not have been used could and probably would be discussed later (they were on issue about thirty years ago). If WP was not used indiscriminately then it is difficult to believe that culpability rests with our people in this instance. If I believed that our people were indiscriminatly killing the Iraqi population do you not think I would be voicing protests along with all the other people you seem to knock?
As for the use of WP. I would actually be surprised if they had not been using it...so what, it is not proscribed and I don't have a problem with it being used but I would have a problem if it were used indiscriminately as you seem to suggest, and I repeat: I think that the insurgents would have certainly found some way of showing that it was respponsible for the deaths that it is alleged to have caused.
As for what Dahr Jamail said or did not say I cannot comment and I would not automatically disregard what had been said...I imagine that would be negligent, but I would have to use my judgement as to whether I believed it, or not. DM. Just for the record...I am biased against fundamentalist Islam, very biased, not because it is another person's religion but because it is a fascist creed, but I am certainly not against Muslims per se (just as I might have been biased against Naziism but not against Germans).
''Is there a selective logic to be employed when believing what a Muslim says?''
My logic in this regard is based on their own writings where lying is sanctioned in Islam (perhaps you did not see the HARDTALK programme on the BBC recently...it would have been quite instructive for you). It is sanctioned in a number of circumstances:
1. During war.
2. In support of one Muslim by another, especially where infidels are concerned.
3. During attempted proselytisation.
If you still think my logic is selective in not believing what they say, I assure you it is not a problem in the slightest degree for me. If you think otherwise in your dealings with them then that could be a problem for you. Consider the points above in any reply and do not take it to mean what you want it to mean...point no 2 is especially petinent.
However, a digression: I was in Somalia serving the UN in 1994 when a Pakistani convoy knocked an Australian vehicle driven by an army n.c.o.off the road. They did not stop and after I checked that the Australian was OK stopped the convoy and asked why they had not stopped to render assistance. They denied they had even knocked the car off the road and every single driver supported the perpetrator. They swore on their Islamic oath...as it happens, a Bangladeshi captain arrived and took control. Despite the UN white paint over the Pak army truck and despite Pak army paint being all over the Australian vehicle they still denied any involvement. I was not the only witness...this was the first time I was alereted to the concept of al Tawkiya (sanctioned lying by Islam), both visually and vocally by the Bangladeshi army officer (who was also of the Muslim civilisation). You seem to conveniently ignore what I did or did not say...I was very careful to use the words: 'in this regard'. Again you write: ''Spare me the macho chest beating of who's been there harder, and therefore has the monopoly on a viewpoint''...don't think I even mentioned it...so, in this regard, DN, I do not hear what I want to hear and certainly not mean things what I want them to mean....that I leave to the Mad Hatter at tea parties and seemingly, to yourself..
As for WMD. It would seem that Saddam was correct when he said he had none at the time. His track record up to that point would suggest him to be the mother of all great liars, TB, GWB, the Clintons, et al, and most of his (SH's) generals disbelieved him as well...they all thought he had WMD. Sure, I thought he had WMD, but it would seem that we were wrong and that the French and Germans were correct. Unpallatable but true.
You suggest that your mail was but an observation of an 'isolated incident in time and location'' and elsewhere that you have 'followed this issue for some time it has been quite apparent for a long time there was substance to the allegations'. Is there perhaps a contradiction here, an obsession perhaps?
Just for the record. I believe I have seen you on TV where you were working on AP mine clearance in Laos as well as in the Balkans, that you, if it is you, are doing a splendid job and one wishes you well. The fact that these weapons were sown so indiscriminately says much about the sowers and their attitudes than about the weapons.
NC43
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutcracker,
This is well and trully getting into the realm of Jetblast so my last post on this topic.
Regarding the civ casualties, the point I'm emphasising is we left no room for anything more than a certain proportion of civilians to escape, and placed unrealistic expectations on their ability to do so. What followed in my opinion is a classic case of seeing what we want to believe, and this becoming mutually reinforcing: the only people left in Fallujah were guilty, if not of being insurgents, then supporting them (clearly their willingness to "stay" implicating them in this), and of those "genuine civilians" that remained, their safety quite assured.
I'm being sarcastic there, but the perspective I get of US forces is very much a talking up of "freedom" and avoiding civilian casualties, but the reality seems to be a disregard for the Iraqi populace (a dead Iraqi by default is an insurgent) and an understandin of just how the populace perceives a foreign, let alone American presense in their country. Iraqi animosity is justifiable, understandable and shouldn't earn the contempt of coalition forces, certainly not to the point where Iraqi civilian lives are at risk in the presense of US troops. Much like Vietnam.
We are talking a city in which 20-30% of the buildings were destroyed. Now, the insurgent population being what was claimed and the number of civilians left in the city also being accurate, this kind of destruction does not develop a picture of discriminate use of firepower. There is a fine line to be drawn between what I think you consider to be discrimimate use of force, and what I believe to be sanctioned, but negligent (perhaps ignorant being a better word) use of force.
Again, the civilian populace remaining and possibly numbering over 100,000, compared to the predicted insurgent population (at the time measured as a few thousand, if that) would indicate any use of indirect fire is going to have a dissproportionate effect on the civilian population.
Like you, I am not surprised at all that WP will be used, or any other weapon. I would expect the US to use every means at its disposal, short of NBC weapons.
With regard to WMD, possibly the most chilling element of this whole conflict for me was my complete expectation that WMD was merely an excuse - despite the very well publicised, if scant evidence presented. I'd hoped that my expectation of this was wrong...it wasn't, I wasn't surprised, and sadly it provided a vindication on my views on US foreign policy. Those in the Middle East who had even less reason to trust the US before, who would have felt even stronger about this than I do, and were ultimately proved correct. This who debacle has given anti-Western and anti-American thought the biggest shot in the arm it could ever need. It hasn't just vindicated their views on US foreign policy but also a lot of other views they hold, which are far more disturbing. The effects of WP are just another boost.
There is no contradiction between my WP argument. The thread was about the use of WP in an urban environment. As the fallujah assault unfolded I was reading reports at the time claiming the use of chemical weapons (which was to me laughable), but as the reports "matured", it was quite clear that the picture we were being presented of Fallujah was propaganda and sanitised in the extreme. There was a lot to pick through and a lot of missinformation, but there was certainly a story to be told there.
Some people on this thread have reacted to my comments on this specific context (WP use in urban Fallujah) as a political attack on the US, the military, and seemingly themselves. My broad views might (or might not) be exactly that, but I am here talking about a specific event. Refusing to accept wrongdoing (or even acknowledging an event) on account of what they perceive to be my broader political outlook is sad.
I mean, do you really think this is what I was saying?
Unless you were watching Crimewatch it wouldn't have been me on the TV, but yes, they are doing fantastic work in Laos - now largely handed over to UXO Laos and indigenously operated, although MAG still has a presence. One for another thread, but the real issue in LPDR is cluster bomb munitions and until reasonably recently, a certain country's (sorry, couldn't resist) refusal to provide render-safe procedures due to the communist nature of government there.
This is well and trully getting into the realm of Jetblast so my last post on this topic.
Regarding the civ casualties, the point I'm emphasising is we left no room for anything more than a certain proportion of civilians to escape, and placed unrealistic expectations on their ability to do so. What followed in my opinion is a classic case of seeing what we want to believe, and this becoming mutually reinforcing: the only people left in Fallujah were guilty, if not of being insurgents, then supporting them (clearly their willingness to "stay" implicating them in this), and of those "genuine civilians" that remained, their safety quite assured.
I'm being sarcastic there, but the perspective I get of US forces is very much a talking up of "freedom" and avoiding civilian casualties, but the reality seems to be a disregard for the Iraqi populace (a dead Iraqi by default is an insurgent) and an understandin of just how the populace perceives a foreign, let alone American presense in their country. Iraqi animosity is justifiable, understandable and shouldn't earn the contempt of coalition forces, certainly not to the point where Iraqi civilian lives are at risk in the presense of US troops. Much like Vietnam.
We are talking a city in which 20-30% of the buildings were destroyed. Now, the insurgent population being what was claimed and the number of civilians left in the city also being accurate, this kind of destruction does not develop a picture of discriminate use of firepower. There is a fine line to be drawn between what I think you consider to be discrimimate use of force, and what I believe to be sanctioned, but negligent (perhaps ignorant being a better word) use of force.
Again, the civilian populace remaining and possibly numbering over 100,000, compared to the predicted insurgent population (at the time measured as a few thousand, if that) would indicate any use of indirect fire is going to have a dissproportionate effect on the civilian population.
Like you, I am not surprised at all that WP will be used, or any other weapon. I would expect the US to use every means at its disposal, short of NBC weapons.
With regard to WMD, possibly the most chilling element of this whole conflict for me was my complete expectation that WMD was merely an excuse - despite the very well publicised, if scant evidence presented. I'd hoped that my expectation of this was wrong...it wasn't, I wasn't surprised, and sadly it provided a vindication on my views on US foreign policy. Those in the Middle East who had even less reason to trust the US before, who would have felt even stronger about this than I do, and were ultimately proved correct. This who debacle has given anti-Western and anti-American thought the biggest shot in the arm it could ever need. It hasn't just vindicated their views on US foreign policy but also a lot of other views they hold, which are far more disturbing. The effects of WP are just another boost.
There is no contradiction between my WP argument. The thread was about the use of WP in an urban environment. As the fallujah assault unfolded I was reading reports at the time claiming the use of chemical weapons (which was to me laughable), but as the reports "matured", it was quite clear that the picture we were being presented of Fallujah was propaganda and sanitised in the extreme. There was a lot to pick through and a lot of missinformation, but there was certainly a story to be told there.
Some people on this thread have reacted to my comments on this specific context (WP use in urban Fallujah) as a political attack on the US, the military, and seemingly themselves. My broad views might (or might not) be exactly that, but I am here talking about a specific event. Refusing to accept wrongdoing (or even acknowledging an event) on account of what they perceive to be my broader political outlook is sad.
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?
Unless you were watching Crimewatch it wouldn't have been me on the TV, but yes, they are doing fantastic work in Laos - now largely handed over to UXO Laos and indigenously operated, although MAG still has a presence. One for another thread, but the real issue in LPDR is cluster bomb munitions and until reasonably recently, a certain country's (sorry, couldn't resist) refusal to provide render-safe procedures due to the communist nature of government there.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"This is well and trully getting into the realm of Jetblast so my last post on this topic."
...or perhaps some interesting replies.
...or perhaps some interesting replies.
