WMD Found in Iraq; Chemical Weapons Used

[garland]

<p>you know, driver, it’s dumb to argue with you. We are not the same people; we don’t have the same values. The world you would “preserve” with your atrocities and your “important project” is not the one I want to live in–and I think a better one is possible. Keep your snide patronizing; I am beginning to think you have more in common with your heroes than I wanted to believe.</p>

[TheDad]

<p>Careful, Garland, or Driver will accuse you of drooling.</p>

[driver]

<p>You need to get in touch with Miles Copperthwaite, both of you.</p>

[newmassdad]

<p>As a former army artillery officer, trained in the choice and use of such weapons, I can tell you that WP is one nasty thing to use in such circumstances. </p>

<p>It is rarely used in antipersonnel situations because it causes injuries all out of proportion to its military (killing and incapacitating) effect. It is pretty clear to me that the main reason it was used in Iraq was to “get even with those guys”.</p>

<p>It would be interesting to know if the rules of engagement even authorized WP use in such circumstances, not that we’ll ever learn.</p>

[mini]

<p><a href=“http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145828249.html[/url]”>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145828249.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Mark 77 is a chemical weapon, which, like napalm, can be used indiscriminately against civilian populations, or simply, as a weapon of mass destruction to target geographic areas, regardless of who occupies them.</p>

[driver]

<p>Mk 77 is a chemical weapon in the same sense that gunpowder is a chemical weapon…it’s made of chemicals. It is not illegal. Any weapon can be used indiscriminately against civilian populations (just ask the terrorists). And any weapon can be used as as a wmd to target geographic areas, regardless of who occupies them.</p>

[barrons]

<p>Mini, your harmless sex offenders are up to no good again:</p>

<p><a href=“http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/248684_offenderarrest17.html[/url]”>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/248684_offenderarrest17.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[newmassdad]

<p>I think some of you are missing the point of the concern some of us have. The military has long operated under what is called the Law of Land Warfare. The Law is a summation, codification and interpretation of the various treaties to which we are signatories. Although GWB seems to equivocate regarding to whom the treaties apply, the military still operates under the law.</p>

<p>It is not hard to find copies of it. Here’s a link to an official source:</p>

<p><a href=“https://www.doctrine.usmc.mil/signpubs/r5121a.pdf[/url]”>https://www.doctrine.usmc.mil/signpubs/r5121a.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>IF you go to page 26, #34, you will read that it says “It is especially forbidden to employ arms, weapons or projectiles calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.”</p>

<p>you can read further into some examples that discuss fire etc., all relevant to WP use.</p>

<p>So, the objection to WP use is that it often is a violation of the Law of Land Warfare.</p>

<p>I used to do briefings on this on active duty, so I’m well familiar with the arguments on both sides.</p>

[barrons]

<p>So all those guys with flamethrowers in WWII, Vietnam, etc were acting badly??</p>

[driver]

<p>

So, the objection to WP use is that it often is a violation of the Law of Land Warfare.

If so, that’s the first time I’ve seen that objection raised. It sounds like an interesting subject for military philosophers to debate–“was that squad of Marines trying to cause uneccessary suffering, or were they just trying to accomplish their mission and stay alive.” No, most of the objections have been of the phony sort that Mini raised–“The US is using chemical weapons or WMD.”</p>

<p>Some useful information if anyone’s interested, linked through Instapundit: <a href=“http://instapundit.com/archives/026884.php[/url]”>http://instapundit.com/archives/026884.php&lt;/a&gt; Including the Medal of Honor citations for 5 US soldiers so honored, for specifically using WP grenades in an anti-personnel capacity.</p>

<p>I especially loved this reader comment:

It seems to me that the Left’s position is inconsistent: if WP rounds are WMD, then Saddam clearly had massive WMD stockpiles, and the war was justified.

</p>

[newmassdad]

<p>Driver,</p>

<p>There’s a first time for everything. :-)</p>

<p>Let’s be clear. WMD and chemical weapons are NOT the same thing. According to the GWB definitions, SOME chemical weapons could be WMD. But not all. </p>

<p>Historically, chemical weapons were not even considered WMD. Even now, I have a hard time associating the “mass” part with chemical weapons. Historically, nukes were the only WMD. (Now, I guess we add airliners? Dual use?)</p>

[wesam88]

<p>WMD’s are weapons that kill or injure civilians as well as enemy “soldiers”. White phosphorous grenades don’t cause mass destruction. </p>

<p>Frankly, I don’t see the point of trying to discuss the nicest way to kill people.</p>

[driver]

<p>NMD: Good points.
I saw your query to FF in another thread about how to do quote boxes.
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/misc.php?do=bbcode[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/misc.php?do=bbcode&lt;/a&gt;
You’ll be able to do all sorts of fancy stuff after you read it.</p>

[newmassdad]

<p>Driver, </p>

<p>

I saw your query to FF in another thread about how to do quote boxes.
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/misc.php?do=bbcode[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/misc.php?do=bbcode&lt;/a&gt;
You’ll be able to do all sorts of fancy stuff after you read it.

</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Wesam,</p>

<p>the wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the history here. I’ll quote a bit;</p>

<p>

The phrase had fallen out of use since the early Cold War era (when it primarily meant nuclear weapons) by 1990. Then, and during the 1991 Gulf War, it was resurrected and used prolifically by politicians and the media, despite having a fairly antique aura. The subject it was used to discuss was Iraq and it continued to be used throughout the 1990’s regarding the need for continued sanctions and military containment of Iraq. This usage, which conflated very different categories of weaponry (chem-bio vs. nuclear), was essentially a political rather than a military one, and it might be argued that the resurrection and use of the term from 1990 – 2003 was expressly for political ends.

</p>

<p>Note that the broader definition is a more recent, largely political one. Historically, WMD referred to nukes and mass bombings.</p>

<p>Even though several web sources define WMD as you do, killing civilians, if you stop and think a bit, you realize the problem with the broad definition. Anything can kill civilians. Simple rifle fire works pretty well if aimed at one. Heck, you can just drive a truck over them. </p>

<p>

Frankly, I don’t see the point of trying to discuss the nicest way to kill people.

</p>

<p>It’s kinda funny - when I had to give the annual lecture on the topic while I was on active duty, some of the vietnam vets in the audience had exactly the same reaction. Here I was. 2nd Lt. telling them the right and wrong way to kill someone.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, It IS the law. We signed the treaties.</p>

[driver]

<p>

Nonetheless, It IS the law. We signed the treaties.

Very nice vB codework! But we didn’t sign Protocol III, which was the one that dealt with weapons such as napalm and WP. And P-III wouldn’t have applied anyway, so long as such weapons weren’t targeted specifically at civilians. Those weapons aren’t designed to kill by toxicity. It does seem like a meaningless distinction, but that’s where we are. Did you read this milblog by an old SF weapons sergeant? <a href=“http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/11/radley_balko_ne.html[/url]”>http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/11/radley_balko_ne.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[newmassdad]

<p>Interesting Blog, and largely in agreement with what I’m saying.</p>

<p>The problem with WP is not that it is considered a banned chemical weapon, whether or not part of Protocol III etc. That’s a separate issue. The problem is that it’s pretty crappy as a conventional weapon. In fact, it’s primary use IS to maim, harras etc., at least when used against people. It’s incendary use, and its smoke use is a different story. </p>

<p>Without being to macabre, if you want to “take folks out” of an area, there are much better weapons than WP. Some of our other cluster shells, like the M444, do a much better job. See this link for a description:</p>

<p><a href=“http://inert-ord.net/usa03a/usa6/m39/index.html[/url]”>http://inert-ord.net/usa03a/usa6/m39/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>BTW, when I was on active duty, I was in a unit that had real WMD. How does 1/2 megaton sound on the end of a missile?</p>

[TheDad]

<p>Using WP in an urban environment can’t help but kill civilians. It’s a very imprecise area weapon. Using WP on Tora Bora is one thing. Using WP in Fallouja is another. And aren’t any of your curious as to why you never see photos of Fallouja in American media?</p>

<p>As far as the Arab media is concerned, their error is understandable: the US never admitted to using WP and all the Iraqis knew were the ghastly conditions of the corpses.</p>

[barrons]

<p>The vast majority of civilians had left as warned. Those who did not did so at their peril and/or were terrorist sympathizers.</p>

[itstoomuch]

<p>“Just Call Me Irresponsible”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/bobby_darin/call_me_irresponsible.html[/url]”>http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/bobby_darin/call_me_irresponsible.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Darn that Bush and Cheney, I’ve been humming that tune all day. Some other people have the same problem from the number of google hits. </p>

<p>Didn’t we have a thread on tunes that we can’t get rid of?</p>

[itstoomuch]

<p>Moving up on the ladder is the Eliza Doolittle’s “Show Me,” in Lerner and Loewe’s My fair Lady with Julie Andrews. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/myfairlady/showme.htm[/url]”>http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/myfairlady/showme.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Glad that GWB and DC are also boomers. Brings back good memories. </p>

<p>Is Casey still around?</p>