So, the question is: Are US Forces Using Illegal Chemical Weapons in Iraq?

[Hurkyl]

You know full well that quetzalcoatl9's accusation was not that merely discussing current world affairs is "anti-american" -- quetzalcoatl9 was referring to the non-representative sample of topics chosen for discussion.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Something's inconsistent here.

In the BBC article (6/24/05):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4116262.stm

Mr Cohen asked in January whether the firebombs had been used by coalition forces in Iraq.

Mr Ingram replied in a written answer: "The United States have confirmed to us that they have not used Mark 77 firebombs, which are essentially napalm canisters, in Iraq at any time.

This is supposedly happened in January 2005; however, from the U.S. State Department, written as of December 9, 2004:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003.

First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003.

Second, as noted above, no Mark-77 firebombs were used in Fallujah.

 

[Evo]

Something's inconsistent here.

In the BBC article (6/24/05):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4116262.stm


This is supposedly happened in January 2005; however, from the U.S. State Department, written as of December 9, 2004:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

I guess Mr Ingram doesn't know how to go on the internet and view publicly displayed information.

 

[Art]

I guess Mr Ingram doesn't know how to go on the internet and view publicly displayed information.

No he went direct to the US gov't for his information. Self evidently not a clever thing to do if you want accurate information

 

[alexandra]

You know full well that quetzalcoatl9's accusation was not that merely discussing current world affairs is "anti-american" -- quetzalcoatl9 was referring to the non-representative sample of topics chosen for discussion.

And my response to this is that this is the major conflict happening at the moment - it is not surprising that it draws so much interest. If we were communicating during the early 1940s, we would undoubtedly have been discussing different conflicts. That discussions on Iraq predominate is partly a result of this being the most important current conflict, and partly a result of involvement. Some people living in the US and in 'coalition' countries are critical of this conflict and/or what is happening in this conflict. Do those people have a right to state what they think (given that their governments have joined this conflict in their names), or not? What is democracy? Why, according to the official justification, is the conflict itself happening? Well, they say they want to 'bring democracy' to the Middle East (starting off with Iraq). Liberal definitions of democracy hold up 'free speech' as one of the ideals to die for. Well, this is what people are doing - exercising their rights. Or is speech no longer a right?

And to address the current topic: whether or not one has signed any documents outlawing the use of such weaponry is immaterial. Any humane person would be affronted by the knowledge that such weapons have been used against people (if it is true that they have been used). It's a matter of simple human decency - that's all. I, for one, am totally against such barbarism.

EDIT: I would really appreciate it if whenever we discuss something people stop trying to stifle debate by accusing those who are against US foreign policy and actions as 'anti-US'. For your information, I am just as anti Australian foreign policy and actions on this issue - ie, I am against the administration of the country I live in. No double standards, you see. It's the issue that is being discussed, not the nationality of people.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

And my response to this is that this is the major conflict happening at the moment - it is not surprising that it draws so much interest. If we were communicating during the early 1940s, we would undoubtedly have been discussing different conflicts. That discussions on Iraq predominate is partly a result of this being the most important current conflict, and partly a result of involvement. Some people living in the US and in 'coalition' countries are critical of this conflict and/or what is happening in this conflict. Do those people have a right to state what they think (given that their governments have joined this conflict in their names), or not? What is democracy? Why, according to the official justification, is the conflict itself happening? Well, they say they want to 'bring democracy' to the Middle East (starting off with Iraq). Liberal definitions of democracy hold up 'free speech' as one of the ideals to die for. Well, this is what people are doing - exercising their rights. Or is speech no longer a right?

that is fine, but it seems like there is a bit of an overrepresentation on Iraq. Since that is just one of many conflicts going on, to focus only on that one over and over and over and over again suggests some kind of agenda. How much more do we have to go through this?

I'm not trying to "silence" anyone, merely to bring up this (what I consider to be) legimate point.

I am very concerned since over 2 million people have died in Sudan now (many as a result of genocide and starvation), aren't you?

 

[brewnog]

And to address the current topic: whether or not one has signed any documents outlawing the use of such weaponry is immaterial. Any humane person would be affronted by the knowledge that such weapons have been used against people (if it is true that they have been used). It's a matter of simple human decency - that's all. I, for one, am totally against such barbarism.

I agree, but war is war. Where rules (notable those laid out in the Geneva Convention) aren't in place, the line of distinction between methods of warfare which are and are not acceptable is not clear, particularly where civilians aren't involved.

 

[brewnog]

I am very concerned since over 2 million people have died in Sudan now (many as a result of genocide and starvation), aren't you?

Yes, definitely. But why not start your own thread about it?

 

[alexandra]

that is fine, but it seems like there is a bit of an overrepresentation on Iraq. Since that is just one of many conflicts going on, to focus only on that one over and over and over and over again suggests some kind of agenda. How much more do we have to go through this?

I'm not trying to "silence" anyone, merely to bring up this (what I consider to be) legimate point.

I am very concerned since over 2 million people have died in Sudan now (many as a result of genocide and starvation), aren't you?

Well, if you are concerned why don't you start a thread on Sudan? Perhaps people will be interested in talking about it, perhaps not. My country's government did not send troops into Sudan without getting the opinions of its people through a referrendum, so I am not personally as involved in what's happening there as I am in this issue.

 

[alexandra]

I agree, but war is war. Where rules (notable those laid out in the Geneva Convention) aren't in place, the line of distinction between methods of warfare which are and are not acceptable is not clear, particularly where civilians aren't involved.

But what if there are treaties and some countries just refuse to sign them? How does that justify actions that the 'global community' see as wrong? See, for example:

The Treaty Database: A Monitor of US Participation in Global Affairs (September 29, 2004)

According to this new report by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, “The Treaty Database: A Monitor of US Participation in Global Affairs,” the US Senate has only ratified around 29% of existing international treaties. The disquieting phenomenon of the US’ reluctance to participate in multilateral treaties presents a clear threat to existing international law and stability. http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/generalindex.htm

And here's a link to the report itself: http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/2004/09database.pdf (it's huge - 114 PDF document).

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Well, if you are concerned why don't you start a thread on Sudan?

a good idea

Perhaps people will be interested in talking about it, perhaps not. My country's government did not send troops into Sudan without getting the opinions of its people through a referrendum, so I am not personally as involved in what's happening there as I am in this issue.

while I do applaude the AU for sending troops, it sure took a long time, and things haven't really changed yet anyway. maybe it is too bad that it took so long for a "referrendum".

over 1/2 a million dead since the Darfur thing started 2 years ago, >2 million since the conflict began in 1983. The kanjaweed are a "spark" that threatens to ignite all of central Africa in Islamic violence and the UN, quite frankly, could care less.

But wait...they are not the evil ones, the US is - for not getting a "referrendum".

 

[alexandra]

while I do applaude the AU for sending troops, it sure took a long time, and things haven't really changed yet anyway. maybe it is too bad that it took so long for a "referrendum".

quetzalcoat|9, you totally misunderstood me - please re-read what I wrote. What I meant to point out was that the Australian people were not asked their opinion in a referrendum (as they should have been). Many Australian people took part in marches against sending troops, but (just as in the US, and in the UK) these demonstrations were ignored by the respective governments - just as news about the demonstrations was only glossed over by the mainstream media.

 

[alexandra]

over 1/2 a million dead since the Darfur thing started 2 years ago, >2 million since the conflict began in 1983. The kanjaweed are a "spark" that threatens to ignite all of central Africa in Islamic violence and the UN, quite frankly, could care less.

But wait...they are not the evil ones, the US is - for not getting a "referrendum".

I have not researched Sudan and am really not up to date with what is happening there (except from what I've seen on TV news and heard on radio news - sources I do not rely on to give a full picture of what is happening). As someone who refrains from discussing issues they know very little about, I cannot comment on Sudan at this point. Please excuse me for not wanting to give an opinion about something I have not read about and analysed extensively - it's a personal quirk of mine. I don't evaluate situations until I've researched them (odd as this might seem).

 

[Art]

You know full well that quetzalcoatl9's accusation was not that merely discussing current world affairs is "anti-american" -- quetzalcoatl9 was referring to the non-representative sample of topics chosen for discussion.

So not content with wishing to construct my arguments for me you would now like to pick my thread subjects too. Maybe like Pengwuino said in another thread 'you wish you were me'. Well, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so I guess I should be flattered.
Still as this is essentially a science forum a few facts might be useful in dispelling the nonsensical aspersions cast on me by such as Quetzcoatl9 and presumably (from your quote above) seconded by yourself.
Out of a total of 7 threads I have started on the political forum 4 have had reference to the USA and 3 have had none. None have been anti-American and threads such as 'Will the US re-introduce the draft' have not even been critical of the current US administration. Those which I have posted which are critical of the US administration I certainly do not apologise for and it certainly does not make me anti-American.
Like it or not US foreign policy is the major issue in the western world today as evidenced by it's prominence in the news media of all of our collective countries. It is also the topic which most of the contributors to this forum are most interested in. As an example when Azimuth started a thread about Lebanon there was precisely 1 reply and that reply was merely to say the poster didn't know much about it.
It is also interesting that posts in threads which should have an international dimension are seized on and attacked by paranoid Bush supporters, such as the media thread started by Lisa, which inevitably reduces the discussion to media influence within the US as people such as myself end up having to defend posts we have written against charges of anti-Americanism by the right wing brigades.
So Hurkyl and Quetzlcoatyl9 I am sure you will want to check the statistics I posted above re my threads but please don't take too long as I look forward to seeing your subsequent retractions and apologies.

 

[brewnog]

But what if there are treaties and some countries just refuse to sign them? How does that justify actions that the 'global community' see as wrong?

Again, I agree, and I'm sure that most others would too. But we're not in the position of choosing methods of warfare, and if we were I'm sure that the decision would not be as easy to make. I think we just have to appreciate that the Geneva Conventions are, at large, respected, and any instances where they are not are treated with the gravity they deserve.

 

[Hurkyl]

Well, I wasn't trying to echo his sentiment, so nyah.

I will admit I should have said something like "the alledged non-representative sample", though.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

So not content with wishing to construct my arguments for me you would now like to pick my thread subjects too. Maybe like Pengwuino said in another thread 'you wish you were me'. Well, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so I guess I should be flattered.
Still as this is essentially a science forum a few facts might be useful in dispelling the nonsensical aspersions cast on me by such as Quetzcoatl9 and presumably (from your quote above) seconded by yourself.
Out of a total of 7 threads I have started on the political forum 4 have had reference to the USA and 3 have had none. None have been anti-American and threads such as 'Will the US re-introduce the draft' have not even been critical of the current US administration. Those which I have posted which are critical of the US administration I certainly do not apologise for and it certainly does not make me anti-American.
Like it or not US foreign policy is the major issue in the western world today as evidenced by it's prominence in the news media of all of our collective countries. It is also the topic which most of the contributors to this forum are most interested in. As an example when Azimuth started a thread about Lebanon there was precisely 1 reply and that reply was merely to say the poster didn't know much about it.
It is also interesting that posts in threads which should have an international dimension are seized on and attacked by paranoid Bush supporters, such as the media thread started by Lisa, which inevitably reduces the discussion to media influence within the US as people such as myself end up having to defend posts we have written against charges of anti-Americanism by the right wing brigades.
So Hurkyl and Quetzlcoatyl9 I am sure you will want to check the statistics I posted above re my threads but please don't take too long as I look forward to seeing your subsequent retractions and apologies.

ok, put 'er there buddy.. <quetzalcoatl extends handshake, then withdraws at last second to smooth hair>

 

[Nereid]

Can we get back, somewhat, to the topic, please?

My €0.02's worth: those running the show are skilled pollies with considerable determination. The resources they have at their disposal, to 'spin' the news, are enormous. In the case of the US administration, we've seen that one tactic is to 're-define' the core concepts used in treaties (remember the 'torture memos'?). At the end of the day, it matters little whether this treaty or that has been broken - such violations are never (almost never?) acted upon simply because they are violations - there's some deeper/broader issue.

In the case of the US in Iraq, it's to do with what vital national (US) interests are involved, and when/if/how some others could come along and trump these (or, the vital interests secured, the need for occupation goes away). Three decades later, historians will record the ultimate cause of the US withdrawal (the changes in vital national interests) as well as the immediate ones (perhaps, violations of various treaties; more likely, 'public opinion').

In the case of the UK and Australia in Iraq, it's to do with a perception of vital national interests being best served by following the US (I can't see how either country could have any significant national interest best served, on its own, by sending troops there).

As a side note, it's curious to see some in the current US administration having such an apparent disregard for history (or maybe it's just arrogance and hubris) - 'last throes'? 'welcomed as liberators'? not to mention the apparent willfulness to disregard the long-term consequences of Gitmo.

 

[russ_watters]

As a side note, it's curious to see some in the current US administration having such an apparent disregard for history (or maybe it's just arrogance and hubris) - 'last throes'? 'welcomed as liberators'?

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by that - are you comparing the reception we got in Iraq to, say, the reception we got in Japan or Germany?

not to mention the apparent willfulness to disregard the long-term consequences of Gitmo.

What long-term consequences?

 

[Nereid]

As a side note, it's curious to see some in the current US administration having such an apparent disregard for history (or maybe it's just arrogance and hubris) - 'last throes'? 'welcomed as liberators'?

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by that - are you comparing the reception we got in Iraq to, say, the reception we got in Japan or Germany?

A little to brief, sorry.

Of course, none of us is privvy to the detailed planning documents used by Rumsfeld et al., with scenarios of what would happen in the weeks, months, and years after the invasion. However, if that planning was done well, with an understanding of the various ethnic, religious, etc groups in Iraq, the history of relations between these groups, etc, the high liklihood of the invasion and subsequent occupation creating an insurgency (and thousands of now well trained, motivated, and armed terrorists) would have been included in those scenarios. Judging by the public comments of US administration officials, and reports of what's actually happening in Iraq, it's hard to square it all with 'good scenario planning, based on historical understanding'. Reasonable conclusion (tentative, as always): Rumsfeld et al. didn't read up on much history.

not to mention the apparent willfulness to disregard the long-term consequences of Gitmo.

What long-term consequences?

Much less restraint by US friends - and non-friends - on the use of torture, illegal detention, etc. Increased resistance by various 'nasty' groups to having the US involved in any international 'fact-finding' missions (etc). Greater need by US to use arm-twisting to get international cooperation. Indirectly, the creation of thousands more anti-American terrorists. Shifting the focus of 'solving' the 'terrorist crisis' from understanding and addressing the root causes to 'tracking down and destroying terrorist cells'. ...

 

[Art]

Here's an interesting article from an official Iraqi Gov't health ministry source relating to the use of internationally banned weapons in the battle of Fallujah.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/744/1/80/

and another claiming eyewitness accounts

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6890A8DA-AF79-45AD-BB4F-42C060978A07.htm

These allegations should at least merit investigation by independant 3rd party countries

Given the definition below does the attack on Fallujah constitute a war crime?

Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed.

 

[sid_galt]

Here's an interesting article from an official Iraqi Gov't health ministry source relating to the use of internationally banned weapons in the battle of Fallujah.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/744/1/80/

The article is hopelessly biased. Notice that it is trying to use depleted uranium in connection with nuclear weapons.
Besides, all they are sighting is ONE official as a source. You need to have some good proof even to investigate whether chemical weapons were used or not.

Believe me, if this even had a hint of truth, the media would have pounced on it like a pack of wolves on sheep.

 

[Art]

The article is hopelessly biased. Notice that it is trying to use depleted uranium in connection with nuclear weapons.
Besides, all they are sighting is ONE official as a source. You need to have some good proof even to investigate whether chemical weapons were used or not.

Believe me, if this even had a hint of truth, the media would have pounced on it like a pack of wolves on sheep.

note my comment.

These allegations should at least merit investigation by independant 3rd party countries

It is also worth pointing out that the "ONE official" happens to be the person assigned by the coalition friendly Iraqi gov't to lead a team to visit Fallujah to report on the health issues there following the battle.

 

[Nereid]

What long-term consequences?

My earlier reply wasn't very coherent.

Russ, it boils down to 'slippery slope'; once you start justifying exceptions to your espoused core values (democracy, rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, equality, ...), it's extraordinarily hard to get those values back, and sooo easy to keep sliding down.

In the case of gitmo, it seems almost all the espoused core US values have been, and are continuing to be, broken.

 

[Evo]

note my comment.


It is also worth pointing out that the "ONE official" happens to be the person assigned by the coalition friendly Iraqi gov't to lead a team to visit Fallujah to report on the health issues there following the battle.

You need to read what you post a little more closely. Your Iraqi "official" is claiming that the US used "gases". "In factone news source quoted Dr. ash-Shaykhli as stating, "I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses." Then it goes on to say that some analysts have made the assumption that descriptions of scenes from the attack resembled napalm.

The US has stated that they did use Mark77 in the attack on Bahgdad, they have denied using it in Fallujah. I think there would be pretty concrete evidence if Mark77 had been used.

 

[Art]

You need to read what you post a little more closely. Your Iraqi "official" is claiming that the US used "gases". "In factone news source quoted Dr. ash-Shaykhli as stating, "I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses." Then it goes on to say that some analysts have made the assumption that descriptions of scenes from the attack resembled napalm.

The US has stated that they did use Mark77 in the attack on Bahgdad, they have denied using it in Fallujah. I think there would be pretty concrete evidence if Mark77 had been used.

The report meets the criteria you set out to establish credibility ie it is an official gov't report so what precisely is your point? The US have denied it so that's it, case closed? Have you considered the possibility that the US gov't just might be lying? Don't you think it is a tad hypocritical to demand official gov't reports as the only credible sources and then to dismiss them out of hand when you don't like the contents?

 

[Evo]

The report meets the criteria you set out to establish credibility ie it is an official gov't report so what precisely is your point??

Official government report?? Your link is to "politicalaffairs.net "Marxist thought online", you call that an official government report? Oh come now.

The US have denied it so that's it, case closed? Have you considered the possibility that the US gov't just might be lying? Don't you think it is a tad hypocritical to demand official gov't reports as the only credible sources and then to dismiss them out of hand when you don't like the contents?

You're the one that jumped the gun and started a thread accussing the US of

US forces are using illegal chemical weapons against Iraqis. The US gov't lied to their allies last January when asked by the British gov't if allegations of it's use of Napalm or similar substances

and created a sensationalist type tabloid heading. You did no research to verify if your allegations were correct. What you claimed as "proof" of a US government lie turned out to be nothing more than a misunderstanding by a single person.

Where is this official government report you claim to have provided proving your allegations are true that you are now claiming that I am dismissing? I don't see one, please repost it so I may read it.

 

[Art]

Official government report?? Your link is to "politicalaffairs.net "Marxist thought online", you call that an official government report? Oh come now. Where is this official government report you claim to have provided proving your allegations are true that you are now claiming that I am dismissing? I don't see one, please repost it so I may read it.

He communicated his findings and suspicions at a press conference in Baghdad on Mar 3rd following which several newsagencies ran the story.

Aljazeera reported that the press conference "was attended by more than 20 Iraqi and foreign media networks, including the Iraqi ash-Sharqiyah TV network, the Iraqi as Sabah newspaper, the US Washington Post and the Knight-Ridder service".
However, the only US news outlet to carry even a mention of the press conference was the Christian Science Monitor's website.

His official report was no doubt communicated in Arabic or possibly Kurdi neither of which I speak and so the English translations available from several sources on the web seems perfectly acceptable.

You're the one that jumped the gun and started a thread accussing the US of and created a sensationalist type tabloid heading. You did no research to verify if your allegations were correct.

Until Aug 10th 2004 the US gov't consistantly denied using napalm in the invasion of iraq against a wall of accusations. After a mountain of evidence they eventually changed their story and admitted to using the Mark 77s. They claimed that their earlier denials were true because they had not actually used a thermobariatic munition called napalm (but a new improved version called Mark 77s). Yeah right.
It would seem that the US gov't confused itself regarding what they had publically admitted and what they hadn't and so when the British gov't requested information the old denial was issued to them.

What you claimed as "proof" of a US government lie turned out to be nothing more than a misunderstanding by a single person.

A misunderstanding? Let's follow this, the British Defense Minister contacts his counterpart in the USA and explains he needs to respond to a question as to whether or not the US has used napalm or mark 77s in Iraq. The reply is "yes we have used mark 77s" but this is interpreted as "no we haven't" The British press certainly doesn't seem disposed to accept this as a "misunderstanding"

Now if you go back to the OP for this thread you will notice the hypocrisy I cited was that the US was using internationally banned weapons against a country on the grounds that that country had internationally banned weapons. The 'lying' part is just an interesting aside to the main issue.
Now again, some people have claimed that as America never ratified the treaty banning these disgusting weapons they are not illegal but in that case as Saddam never signed ANY of these treaties his (if he had actually had any ) were by the same token not illegal. Thus we have a serious case of double standards which = Hypocrisy.

 

[brewnog]

Let's follow this, the British Defense Minister contacts his counterpart in the USA and explains he needs to respond to a question as to whether or not the US has used napalm or mark 77s in Iraq. The reply is "yes we have used mark 77s" but this is interpreted as "no we haven't" The British press certainly doesn't seem disposed to accept this as a "misunderstanding"

This is how you assume it went. For all we know, Mr Ingram may have asked "have you used Napalm?", and was truthfully given the answer "no". He may then have gone to his MoD chaps and said "they've said they haven't used Napalm", and they all understood this to mean "they haven't used any napalm, or any other incendiaries".

It's easy to see how the confusion between napalm and MK77 bombs (and there IS a distinction) which has become apparent in this thread, could have clouded the discourse between the US, Mr Ingram, the MoD, and the press.

Now if you go back to the OP for this thread you will notice the hypocrisy I cited was that the US was using internationally banned weapons against a country on the grounds that that country had internationally banned weapons.

While napalm has been widely banned, there is nothing in any sources posted here to say that MK77 bombs have been globally banned. Remember that incendiaries have only been banned in civilian concentrations, their use is still legal.

The 'lying' part is just an interesting aside to the main issue.

I think it's been determined that we're not dealing with "lying", but a "misunderstanding". If it was lying, I doubt Mr Ingram would still hold his job, and a full inquiry would currently be underway. This is not the case.


I ask again, what's the problem? Once the misunderstanding had been realized, it was corrected and apologised for.

 

[Art]

This is how you assume it went. For all we know, Mr Ingram may have asked "have you used Napalm?", and was truthfully given the answer "no". He may then have gone to his MoD chaps and said "they've said they haven't used Napalm", and they all understood this to mean "they haven't used any napalm, or any other incendiaries".

It's easy to see how the confusion between napalm and MK77 bombs (and there IS a distinction) which has become apparent in this thread, clouded the discourse between the US, Mr Ingram, the MoD, and the press.



While napalm has been widely banned, there is nothing to say that MK77 bombs have been banned. Remember that incendiaries have only been banned in civilian concentrations, their use is still legal.



I think it's been determined that we're not dealing with "lying", but a "misunderstanding". If it was lying, I doubt Mr Ingram would still hold his job, and a full inquiry would currently be underway. This is not the case.


I ask again, what's the problem? Once the misunderstanding had been realized, it was corrected and apologised for.

The difference between napalm and mark 77s is a like a country being asked did you drop a 70 megaton nuke on so and so and them denying it because they had actually dropped a 75megaton nuke.
Read this thread post #23. Mark 77s are specifically referenced both in the question to him and in his reply. I don't know whether you are aware or not but written questions to parliament are not something ministers answer off the top of their heads or guess at. It is an extremely important part of the democratic process and if any minister is found to have deliberately mis-led parliament it means instant dismissal. Because of this all answers are rigorously checked for accuracy.
The reason Mr Ingram is still in a job is because he was not the one who had lied.

FYI Refering to the about-turn the US gov't made in Aug 2004

It Is Still Napalm

The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of `polystyrene-like` gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.

John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The U.S. is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it."

Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the weapons was outrageous. "It's Orwellian. They do not want the public to know. It's a lie," he said.

And the difference between these two devices? According to the Pentagon, while the new mixture still coats its victims bodies in fuel gel before igniting, causing untreatable third degree burns, a la Vietnam, it's less harmful to the environment.

 

[Evo]

Official government report?? Your link is to "politicalaffairs.net "Marxist thought online", you call that an official government report? Oh come now. Where is this official government report you claim to have provided proving your allegations are true that you are now claiming that I am dismissing? I don't see one, please repost it so I may read it.

He communicated his findings and suspicions at a press conference in Baghdad on Mar 3rd following which several newsagencies ran the story.

That's right, it was NOT a government report. You won't gain credibility here unless you are able to admit when you made a mistake, it's human to make mistakes, it's bad not to admit it. You also accused me of dismissing a government report that you never even furnished. You accused me of disregarding information if I didn't agree with it concerning the same non-existant report. You are making false statements.

His official report was no doubt communicated in Arabic or possibly Kurdi neither of which I speak and so the English translations available from several sources on the web seems perfectly acceptable.

He's in the Health Ministry, and it was an informal press conference, not a government report.

Until Aug 10th 2004 the US gov't consistantly denied using napalm in the invasion of iraq against a wall of accusations.

Wrong, I have right here an article from August 5th 2003, where it says the Pentagon admitted that although they hadn't used napalm, they used Mark 77 firebombs. War is about killing, unfortunately. The military's goal is to get the job done with the least amount of casualties to the troops. Incendiary bombs are not illegal when used against military targets, which is how they were used.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030805-firebombs01.htm

Now if you go back to the OP for this thread you will notice the hypocrisy I cited was that the US was using internationally banned weapons against a country on the grounds that that country had internationally banned weapons.

And you've been proven wrong, repeatedly, as has been presented several times in this thread already "international law does not prohibit their use against military forces".

 

[Art]

That's right, it was NOT a government report. You won't gain credibility here unless you are able to admit when you made a mistake, it's human to make mistakes, it's bad not to admit it. You also accused me of dismissing a government report that you never even furnished. You accused me of disregarding information if I didn't agree with it concerning the same non-existant report. You are making false statements.

He's in the Health Ministry, and it was an informal press conference, not a government report.

This is ridiculous you are playing semantics. He was sent by the Iraqi gov't in an official capacity to review health consequences of the battle in Fallujah. When he returned he reported via a press conference his alleged findings to the world. Are you saying because he didn't publish it on form 2b/a or whatever it's invalid?
If you remember in my earlier post I didn't suggest he should be believed without question, maybe he's a total fruitcake but I said before and still think it warrants investigation.
And again going back to my earlier mail it is simply ridiculous in any case to state that only Official Gov't reports have credibility as that completely negates the work of the world's entire press corp in contributing to debate. Strangely though I have never seen you make similar demands of pro-Bush posters Can you confirm if this is a usual condition you request and provide evidence as if it is not then do you not think you are being a little hypocritical in having 2 standards?
In fact in the past couple of days I have had one person instructing me on how to formulate my arguments another telling me what threads I should post and you telling me where I should source my information from. And all from the land of Freedom and free speech.

Wrong, I have right here an article from August 5th 2003, where it says the Pentagon admitted that although they hadn't used napalm, they used Mark 77 firebombs. War is about killing, unfortunately. The military's goal is to get the job done with the least amount of casualties to the troops. Incendiary bombs are not illegal when used against military targets, which is how they were used.

Agreed mea culpa I mistakenly put 2004 instead of 2003. Which doesn't change one iota the fact the US gov't argued semantics to justify their earlier denials. Ref quotes in my later mail detailing similarities between Napalm and Mark 77s. BTW It's interesting your contention re war is about killing as a justification for using these weapons. I find it hard to reconcile that with the US gov'ts stated reaons for America's attack on Iraq though, ie Iraq's imaginary terrible weapons of destruction.

And you've been proven wrong, repeatedly, as has been presented several times in this thread already "international law does not prohibit their use against military forces".

Check google practically EVERY article written about the USA's use of this weapon (including British) other than those from the US gov't refers to Napalm (and son of Napalm - Mark 77s) as banned weapons! Perhaps they are correct or perhaps it is because decent people view such weapons with such revulsion that they assume they are banned. Incidentally if it was used in Fallujah then you will note Fallujah is a city not a military base.

On March 17, 2005, Al Jazeera reported on the wholesale killings of civilians by U.S. forces in Fallujah, including through the use of napalm. In that story, Al Jazeera provided eyewitness accounts of U.S. forces killing entire families, including women and children. Likewise, Al Jazeera reported that the U.S. raided the only hospital in Fallujah at the beginning of the assault in order to prevent reports of civilian casualties.

The U.S. has yet to attempt to discredit the story published by Al Jazeera.

Furthermore, U.S. denials about using prohibited weapons in Fallujah, particularly napalm, lack credibility inasmuch as the U.S. was forced to retract previous denials of similar accusations. On March 22, 2003, following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that U.S. forces had used napalm. Noting that napalm had been banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 (a convention never signed by the U.S.), U.S. military spokesmen denied using napalm in Iraq. On August 5, 2003, however, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that U.S. officials confirmed using "napalm-like" weapons in Iraq between March and April 2003.

In a feat of semantic hair-splitting of which Bill Clinton would have been proud, the U.S. claimed the incendiaries used in Iraq contained less benzene than the internationally-banned napalm and, therefore, were "firebombs" and not napalm.

Another quote

The US has already admitted that it used napalm during the siege of Baghdad. The truth was reluctantly confirmed by the Pentagon after news reports corroborated the evidence. The military has tried to conceal the truth by saying that there is a distinction between its new weapon and “traditional napalm”. The “improved” product carries the Pentagon moniker “Mark 77 firebombs” and uses jet fuel to “decrease environmental damage”. The fact that military planner’s even considered “environmental damage” while developing the tools for incinerating human beings, gives us some insight into the deep vein of cynicism that permeates their ranks.

The Pentagon’s hair-splitting has done little to obfuscate the facts. Marines returning from Iraq call the bombs napalm and napalm it is. Journalist Simon Jenkins of the British Sunday Times describes the incidents in Falluja like this: “Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.” It is an excruciatingly painful way to die.

Independent journalists have been reporting for some time now that the US has been using banned weapons in Falluja. Iraqi doctors have noted that many of the bodies they have examined have been “swollen, yellowish and have no smell.” Asia Times online has reported that “Americans used chemical weapons in the bombing of Jolan, ash-Shuhada and al-Jubayl neighborhoods. They also say the neighborhoods were showered with cluster bombs”; an allegation that refutes the Pentagon’s claim of “precision bombing”.

While on the subject of WMD the USA also brought MOABs to Iraq which are 9.5 ton Fuel Air Bombs, the largest explosion you can get without going nuclear and stated their intention to use them if deemed necessary. So it seems USA WMD = Good; Iraq (non-existant) WMD = Bad . Sure stinks of hypocrisy to me. or is that just oil I can smell?

 

[Evo]

This is ridiculous you are playing semantics. He was sent by the Iraqi gov't in an official capacity to review health consequences of the battle in Fallujah. When he returned he reported via a press conference his alleged findings to the world. Are you saying because he didn't publish it on form 2b/a or whatever it's invalid?

He was concerned about the possible use of gas.

Strangely though I have never seen you make similar demands of pro-Bush posters Can you confirm if this is a usual condition you request and provide evidence as if it is not then do you not think you are being a little hypocritical in having 2 standards?

I'm not Republican, didn't vote for Bush, don't like Bush, the religious right in this country frightens me. You guessed that one wrong. My only standard is if you're wrong, I'll point it out, it doesn't matter which side you're on.

If you are opposed to the use of incendiary devices on a humanitarian basis, then you have an arguable position, but that wouldn't fall under the topic of this thread. Since the US doesn't appear to have violated any international laws, I guess that argument is dead, the US admits to using incendiary devices and the use was in line with International law. The fact that you don't agree with the use doesn't make it illegal.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And again going back to my earlier mail it is simply ridiculous in any case to state that only Official Gov't reports have credibility as that completely negates the work of the world's entire press corp in contributing to debate. Strangely though I have never seen you make similar demands of pro-Bush posters Can you confirm if this is a usual condition you request and provide evidence as if it is not then do you not think you are being a little hypocritical in having 2 standards?

Art, the original claim (one of them) here is that the US government officially denied using napalm. If you (or any one) were to tell me such a thing then I too would want to have a source for this "official" claim and ofcourse the best would be to site the specific official claim which would be detailed by an official government source's report. An official report is not an interview with the media even if it is from the mouth of a government official. Do you believe that when this gentleman returned to the US to file his report that he just handed in the media transcripts? Now, on top of this, if I do have an official report that does not concur with your accusations I would probably be even less inclined to believe the second (or third) hand statements of individuals regarding such reports. There's a kids game called telephone, perhaps you have heard of it?, and the premise of the game is that more than likely from one iteration to the next communicated information will tend to break down. That is why there are such things as official reports.

 

[Art]

Art, the original claim (one of them) here is that the US government officially denied using napalm. If you (or any one) were to tell me such a thing then I too would want to have a source for this "official" claim and ofcourse the best would be to site the specific official claim which would be detailed by an official government source's report. An official report is not an interview with the media even if it is from the mouth of a government official. Do you believe that when this gentleman returned to the US to file his report that he just handed in the media transcripts? Now, on top of this, if I do have an official report that does not concur with your accusations I would probably be even less inclined to believe the second (or third) hand statements of individuals regarding such reports. There's a kids game called telephone, perhaps you have heard of it?, and the premise of the game is that more than likely from one iteration to the next communicated information will tend to break down. That is why there are such things as official reports.

The US gov't unquestionably DID officially deny using napalm during it's initial invasion of Baghdad I don't think even EVO is arguing that point. They justified their denial later, when an avalanche of evidence was accumulated against them, that they were asked the wrong question because they had in fact used Mark 77s which even their own inventory records describe as napalm. They also, much later, according to the British gov't denied using either napalm or Mark 77s in response to an enquiry from the British defence minister for which I have provided a source, Hansard, which is as impeccable a source as you can get. see post #23.