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

[Art]

He was concerned about the possible use of gas.

Don't you agree this warrants investigation?

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.

I must have missed the part where you provided examples of your insistance to pro-Bush supporters that only official gov'ts reports are credible sources. Would you show me where these examples are?

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.

The thread is about hypocrisy

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?

I'm surprised as a 'neutral' you don't see the duplicity here.

 

[sid_galt]

note my comment.

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

That is what I mean. You need to have more proof than just one official "claiming" something to even start investigations on a country like USA or even France for that matter because aside from Abu Ghraib, US has no virtually no history of abuse.

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.

There are nutjobs everywhere.

 

[sid_galt]

The thread is about hypocrisyI'm surprised as a 'neutral' you don't see the duplicity here.

The USA is not a dictatorship like Iraq was.

 

[arildno]

The USA is not a dictatorship like Iraq was.

A dictatorship is something quite different from a hypocritical regime.

Nazi Germany, for example, was wholly unhypocritical; Hitler said "we will exterminate the Jews", and he went on with doing just that.
There were no double standards in ideals and practice in Nazi Germany, or for that matter, in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

This discussion seems to have spiralled into semantic sophistry for the sole purpose of one-upmanship, and to be honest Art, the tone you laid out in the OP made this inevitable. If you want people to debate the news itself, and not argue their stance on your appraisal of it, you should be a little more objective, at least in the OP. I'm not dissing you or arguing against your position, but starting the thread with accusations of hypocrisy and lies is more likely to generate debate on your wording than on the actual topic in hand.

On the other hand, I think the lengths people are going to in the cause of denial are pretty pathetic. The call for official government statements is naive at best, since if any are forthcoming they will come with all the usual spin, propaganda and tactical omissions. An amount of cynicism is healthy. Also, a lot of the links posted by both sides of the debate are either laughable (Sunday Mirror?!?) or don't really provide the reposte the posters think they do.

On the other other hand, bear the following in mind:

1. The BBC site, the only link posted so far I'd assign any credibility, does not say these weapons are used in Fallujah, but in the campaign as a whole. The intention is stated to determine WHETHER the weapons were used in Fallujah. On the other other other hand (I am a chimp), this means that posting US govt-sourced articles stating that they are NOT used in Fallujah does nothing to contradict the BBC story. This question is pending.

2. Napalm and the Mark-77 are not illegal weapons. Their use is restricted under UN protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention. The US has NOT signed the protocol. There is obviously a moral issue here, but it seems at present the US is not breaking any international law by using napalm or its ilk even in the most heavily populated areas - such as Baghdad, where it seems it has been used, or used near. Iraq, on the other hand, DID sign UN treaties banning several weapons it had stockpiled and CONTINUED to stockpile long after the first Iraq war. There is no evidence that they were used, but certainly Iraq did break ratified treaties while the US did not. Therefore accusations of hypocrisy are not accurate.

3. The US government denied using napalm. The US government did NOT deny using firebombs in general. The term 'napalm' is used in the US military to describe MK-77. The US military have used the word 'napalm' in its inventory of weapons dispatched. The US military has used the word 'napalm' to describe a weapon that has been used in Iraq. The term 'napalm' is clearly used by the international community to describe MK-77. In fact, the only body who does not describe MK-77 as 'napalm' is the US government, AFTER accusations of using napalm were made (though the UK government, keen on spin as it is, will no doubt follow suit). Kind of like describing prisoners of war as 'enemy combatants' after accusations of breach of the Geneva conventions were made. It seems a typical tactic of the Bush administration to rename things that have negative connotations and think this excuses their actions. Let's call a spade a spade - MK-77 is a type of napalm. The US denial of napalm use is irrelevant - it's just spin. It doesn't make them liars - just a**holes.

As I see it, the real issues here are:

1. Once again the Bush administration has left it's closest allies hanging out to dry. By denying the use of napalm, when the US military has referred to weapons that HAVE been used as napalm, the US government has not considered the repurcussions in other countries, or did and simply did not care. There's no way to prove that the US were, when denying the use of napalm, also denying the use of MK-77, so I don't see much point in arguing over it. However, it is blatently obvious that after the accusations of napalm use were made, the US government started making distinctions that no-one else, including it's own military, the UN and its allies, make. We already know attitude adopted by the Bush administration when it gets it's allies in trouble, following it's admission that Iraq 'probably' did not have WMDs, a statement it made without bothering to give the rest of the coalition a prior heads-up on. So the Bush administration can go poke it. But the only people who will see this disgusting unloyalty are the ones who already thought Bush administration could go poke it. POKE IT!

2. There is a judgement to be made on the US for using what amounts to napalm not only at all, but in populated areas in or close to Baghdad and, if it transpires they were used in Fallujah also, all the more so. But this is the government that has always continued to use methods and tools thought barbaric to the rest of the world and/or supports their past, present and future use by denying the side-effects they have (agent orange, depleted uranium, cluster bombs). What's new? Only the American people can put its government in line, and 52% of them can't be wrong. Can they?

 

[Evo]

Excellent synopsis on both sides El Hombre Invisible.

The military is always going to release a version of the truth which is their truth, that doesn't mean there's not "more truth" they haven't told. It's politics.

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't believe extremes on either side of the news, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

People will be more likely to listen to your point when it is made calmly and when good questions are raised.

Again, very good post.

 

[Astronuc]

Excellent synopsis on both sides El Hombre Invisible.

Again, very good post.

Agreed.

While I am skeptical of just about anything coming out of the Bush administration, I am also cautious about what is reported by any news organization these days. I prefer other independent sources, if I can't verify it myself. I know my local newspaper has misquoted people in the past and taken things out of context, which sometimes produces a story completely in contradiction with the truth.

As for napalm, that being the original formulation of naphtenic and palmitic acids, is no longer used. Other compounds are used instead.

As for chemical weapons - checking the facts, one finds -

1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

from http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is the international organisation that was established in 1997 by the countries that have joined the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to make sure that the Convention works effectively and achieves its purpose.

Napalm and its successors are not 'chemical weapons', nor do incendiary devices constitute weapons of mass destruction (WMD).