POL: White phosphorous

rexallllsc · 11-16-2005, 11:42 AM

hxxp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4442156.stm

What do you guys think of this?

I know it's not technically a chemical weapon, but if we knew that civilians were down there, does that change your mind at all?

Also, odd (not really) that the government denied this at first:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv..._Fallujah.html

JonInMiddleGA · 11-16-2005, 11:58 AM

Willy Pete has been around for centuries & used commonly since WWI. It's can be highly effective in certain situations & I see exactly zero problem with it being used as deemed
useful by commanders in the field.

Radii · 11-16-2005, 12:18 PM

I have more problem with the fact that the government either found it necessary to lie about its use, or was simply unaware of how it was used(either one of those things bother me quite a bit), than with the fact that it was used.

Iraq/insurgents have proven time and again that they are willing to put civilians and religous structures in harms way to create problems for the US, that knowledge lessens some(but not all) of my worry about civilian casualties without in depth information on the exact situation in which civilians were killed.

sterlingice · 11-16-2005, 12:39 PM

Why is it always about white phosphorous? Why can't it be mulitcultural, ya racist?

SI

rkmsuf · 11-16-2005, 12:41 PM

that's a great name for a white nba guy

sachmo71 · 11-16-2005, 01:10 PM

If someone is hiding in a bunker, or bunkers (or caves, etc), you can blast each one individually with high explosives, or you can use overpressure to kill them all at once.

Since what I've heard about this attack seems to imply that it was used in this manner (i.e. mysterious white cloud), I think the commander was well within his rights to use this weapon. Unfortunately if there are civilians mixed in, they are going to take casualties as well, at which point the who "are civilian casualties worth killing insurgents" argument.

But as far as the weapon use, I have no problem with it.

Glengoyne · 11-16-2005, 06:36 PM

Am I missing something...Where did the US deny using them? Someone said they were used for illumination, rather than to drive people out of fortified positions, but that doesn't seem like a quote unquote denial.

This isn't a chemical weapon, if that is what is being implied.

11-16-2005, 11:58 AM	#2
JonInMiddleGA Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA	Willy Pete has been around for centuries & used commonly since WWI. It's can be highly effective in certain situations & I see exactly zero problem with it being used as deemed useful by commanders in the field. __________________ "I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis

11-16-2005, 12:39 PM	#4
sterlingice Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Back in Houston!	Why is it always about white phosphorous? Why can't it be mulitcultural, ya racist? SI __________________ Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!"

11-16-2005, 12:41 PM	#5
rkmsuf Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2001	that's a great name for a white nba guy __________________ "Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales

11-16-2005, 12:18 PM	#3
Radii Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	I have more problem with the fact that the government either found it necessary to lie about its use, or was simply unaware of how it was used(either one of those things bother me quite a bit), than with the fact that it was used. Iraq/insurgents have proven time and again that they are willing to put civilians and religous structures in harms way to create problems for the US, that knowledge lessens some(but not all) of my worry about civilian casualties without in depth information on the exact situation in which civilians were killed.

11-16-2005, 01:10 PM	#6
sachmo71 The boy who cried Trout Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: TX	If someone is hiding in a bunker, or bunkers (or caves, etc), you can blast each one individually with high explosives, or you can use overpressure to kill them all at once. Since what I've heard about this attack seems to imply that it was used in this manner (i.e. mysterious white cloud), I think the commander was well within his rights to use this weapon. Unfortunately if there are civilians mixed in, they are going to take casualties as well, at which point the who "are civilian casualties worth killing insurgents" argument. But as far as the weapon use, I have no problem with it.

11-16-2005, 06:36 PM	#7
Glengoyne Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Fresno, CA	Am I missing something...Where did the US deny using them? Someone said they were used for illumination, rather than to drive people out of fortified positions, but that doesn't seem like a quote unquote denial. This isn't a chemical weapon, if that is what is being implied.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)