Pentagon Used White Phosphorous in Iraq...

washingtonpost ^ | Tuesday, November 15, 2005; 6:02 PM | ROBERT BURNS (AP)

[R. Scott]

Never understood why it's ok to blow a guy up or shoot him full of holes or bayoneting him but burning him is somehow wrong.

And – the bayonet can only be used to stab, not slash. It’s against the convention to have a sharp edged blade.
Strange how much time we spent sharpening our bayonet blades.

[oldenuff2no]

I can't believe the crap that is on here.
We are at war to kill as many of the enemy as we possibly can while getting as few of our own injured or killed as we possibly can.
If you find something that kills effectively then you use it and pass the word around.
In Granada they were still working out the 50 sniper rifles. The SEALS kept asking us to back up so they could shoot at longer distances. They were too close to evaluate total effective range. They were still making one for one hits at 1200 meters. Their targets were behind this short brick wall at a school and the poor fools didn't have a clue which way the hostile fire was coming from. We had a first row seat for over an hour and they even let us try a few rounds. I think I was the second Ranger to ever touch one of the 50 sniper rifles. they were sweet shooting and very accurate. One for one and they took it away from me.
I came home and went to gunsmith school and have been building long range rifles and shooting extended range competition every since. I'm hooked on the big boys.

[DBeers]

Technically WP is against the Hague Conventions on war if used on people, just like other incendiary devices.

Technically? -it either is or is not...

[GAB-1955]

See the previous posts. You can use WP on equipment, but not on people. However, people use equipment, and sometimes the equipment is the rifle a man carries.

[Axlrose]

Thats an urban myth.

You can view the relevant Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) here

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument

"
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives"

Question is, were their civilians in the area's attacked ?

If not then there is no case to answer, if so then its bad PR time.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

On the upside, it is always nice to be able to tell the Socialists that Willie Pete does NOT stick to women and children.

It generally burns clear through.

[GAB-1955]

"Thats an urban myth.

You can view the relevant Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) here

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument "

I have read the documents. However, there is a difference between practice and theory. The questions become:

1) Was the use of WP against civilians intentional?
2) If this use was intentional, did such use violate treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory?
3) If there was a treaty violation, was it a war crime? (The two concepts are not synonymous.)

The burden of proof is on the accusing party, which would be the other belligerent in the war--al-Queda. Finally:

4) In which venue would this alleged war crime be tried? The United States does not hold to the theory that third nation-states may investigate and punish crimes between combat between the U.S. and another nation.

I would move that any legal investigation would be quashed. There is no state of war going on; rather, this is suppression of a criminal band whose powers are such that they cannot be handled by local, Iraqi, authorities. There is no nation-state to which these jihadis adhere to. There is no Iraqi government in exile for whom they fight. Thus, it would not be a war.

Even if a state of war is accepted on a de facto basis, one could argue that the use of WP as an alternative to infantry attacks saved lives in close assault. Furthermore, the use of WP was aimed at military objectives, not civilian objectives. There was no attempt to frighten the citizens of Fallujah into surrender; there was no attempt to destroy the city as a whole; there was an attempt to burn out fighters from fixed strongpoints, near which civilians lived. It is hard on the civilians, but legal under the law of war.

The intent of the law was to protect civilians against wanton and indiscriminate attack. The United States assault against Fallujah was neithter wanton--Fallujah harbored persons who attacked American Marines and soldiers--nor indiscriminate, in that it had specific objectives and goals. Thus, Question (3) can also be answered in the negative.

Because the first three questions could be answered in the negative, this should make question (4) moot. I will answer it anyway. Because this is not an war that involves neighboring nations as combatants, and because the parties involved were the U.S., Iraq, and the insurgents, no other party has the legal authority to investigate this incident or to establish and apportion blame among the belligerents.

[RedMonqey]

"Next, the moonbats will be crying a river over the emissions a tank makes."

Well close to it. Read a few years back they were co,complaining about the LEAD that spent shells were leaving behind at Firing Ranges and the battlefield.

[jayef]

The United States is not a signatory to Protocol III. That's all you need to know.

[Barney59]

I read the AP story on this in the San Diego Union-Tribune this morning... it's amazing how hard the little liberal author strained to distort this fact...

For God's sake it's just friggin' SMOKE! What in the heck is wrong with these people?

But that's obvious...

[DBeers]

For God's sake it's just friggin' SMOKE! What in the heck is wrong with these people?

[They] are just attempting everything possible to promulgate thier morally devoid agenda -with nothing good to promote [they] attempt to look good by disparaging others...

[blasater1960]

Good grief...they only used it to flush 'em then blow 'em up. It's not like they suffered long......

[Texican]

Wolf:
I went to that site, and it is a great site. I went through all of the posts, but did not see anyone that I knew. I did add it to my favorites. Thanks for the information.

Good evening and the very best to you and yours.

Semper Fi
Tommie

[Natural Law]

The left is bitching about inflicting combat wounds of any kind. Granted WP is a pretty bad way to die. I have a small WP burn on my left leg just above the boot top compliments of an 82 mm mortar round. When WP burns, it cannot be put out with water. It is an incredibly intense heat and can literally burn through a human body. I wouldn't want to have had more extensive contact with it. I also wouldn't want to have been shot, stabbed, blown up or have my head sawn off by thugs in ski masks either. I did get a pretty serious shrapnel wound in a separate incident that I wish hadn't happened either. War is hell and shit happens. The "insurgents" could haver avoided all of it by staying home and behaving themselves.

[wolficatZ]

Tommie,somewhere I have a newsreel on video of the recapture of Guam, I need to see if I can dig it up.

I don't know how you feel about watching combat cameramen films from that era, but films like "To the Shores of Iwo Jima" have lot of flamethrower clips in 16mm technicolor, both the backpack type and the ones mounted on the M-4 Sherman tank.

There is another clip of a Japanese soldier, completely engulfed in flames, running out in front of the cameraman and falling to the ground.

I don't know where it comes from, and I've only seen it a couple of times, but it's quite shocking when one sees it, even in an documentary film.

Reminds one of what a fearfully deadly and effective weapon the flamethrower was..and it took a lot of guts to carry one of those around too.

[rock58seg]

Not that I am against the use of WP, as an old FDC computer I applaud it. But if you want "smoke" use a smoke shell. If you wish to create an explosion, use shell HE, If you need to burn something or through something, shell "Willie Poppa' is an excellent choice. To increase effective busrt range, I would even try for an air burst.

For that matter, what are "civilians" doing in an area of heavy combat. Even the European peasants were smart enough to try and clear an area that was going to see heavy fighting.

As Patton said, "Make the other Son-Of a-B-tch die for his country."

[An.American.Expatriate]

I don't understand how using a smoke screan is illegal, but I notice the left wing blogs are going crazy over this.

LOL!!!

Over here the press is claiming that the US used "chemical" weapons in Iraq! While technically true, it is quite misleading and the average Joe will swallow the latest "scandal" as gospel.

[rock58seg]

I used to ride with the convoy safety officer at the end of convoy's in Germany, as interpreter. The stupid things the Germans did to get into accidents, always boggled my mind.

I remember one time, while on leave, being behind a Corporal missile carrier. If anyone remembers, there were two semi rigs, that would lift the launch pad between them, one in front, one in back. We were going up a hill on a two lane road. Just not fast enough for comrade. He whipped out in his little VW, made it halfway past, and ran into the face of oncoming traffic. I was already braking for torn metal. All he did was duck under the missile and drive there, until the traffic cleared, popped out and finished passing.

[operation clinton cleanup]

All he did was duck under the missile and drive there, until the traffic cleared, popped out and finished passing.

Haha! I think I saw that in a movie once. I have never been in such a hurry that I would be willing to play hide and seek under a ballistic missile!

[rock58seg]

Haha! I think I saw that in a movie once. I have never been in such a hurry that I would be willing to play hide and seek under a ballistic missile!

One time while riding with the Safety Officer as interpreter, we came onto an accident where Comrade had been passing service battery ammo trucks going uphill. He met some oncoming traffic. Instead of slowing and ducking back in, he just pulled over toward the ammo truck. Trying to make a three lane out of a two lane I suppose. He got too close and the tires on the truck, which were higher than his car, just ground the sheet metal right off the side of the car. Amazing sight. No-one hurt.

Always pee-ed me off that the U.S. gov't just paid these claims no questions asked.