Chemical weapons

[Skunk]

Washington sent a very clear weapon to Iraqi commanders when it went to war - "Use chemical weapons and you *will* be tried for war crimes!"

And then what does the US military do?

Pilots confirm US dropped napalm in Baghdad advance
WASHINGTON - American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.

A 1980 United Nations convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war.

The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River, south of Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

A reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald who witnessed another napalm attack on March 21 on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill, close to the Kuwaiti border, wrote the following day: "Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. 'I pity anyone who is in there, a Marine sergeant said. We told them to surrender."'

At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. "We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001," it said.

The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war.

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.

[Animal]

But it's okay for the US to use it because...well...they're the US! I think when Washington suggested that usage of chemical weapons would result in war crimes they were refering to everyone else. Come now, we should all be aware that they are above the law.

[Stratos]

This might strain the already tense relations between the US and the Iraqi population even more.

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Animal: But it's okay for the US to use it because...well...they're the US! I think when Washington suggested that usage of chemical weapons would result in war crimes they were refering to everyone else. Come now, we should all be aware that they are above the law.

But it's not napalm, it's Mark 77. There's a Huuuuuge difference. (sarcasm)

Edit: I can't help but to think about the outrage if it was the Iraqis using napalm on the American troops and not the other way around.

[ 08-11-2003, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Yorick]

Not good. But is dying "conventionally" through a "normal" bomb any better? Isn't death in war death in war? Why are we suprised by all this? What are we expecting from a nation at war?


And are we applying the same rules to the other side? Is flying planes into buildings and blowing up civilians in nightclubs or embassies any better? Is torturing your own civilians unto death a pillar of moral righteousness?

What's the point? War is evil. We already knew that.

Edit:

Perhaps if the world had been of one voice regarding getting a totalitarian brutal murdering maniac out of office, instead of giving him valuable international support, there would have been no war.

I blame "the coalition of the unwilling" just as much, if not more so than anyone else for the war. If a man is beating his wife and kids to death, we have a moral obligation to get in there and stop him. Those that used "peace activism" to support a brutal regime and perpetuate it by tading with him, are as guilty as a person who knows a child is being beaten, and endorses the behaviour.

Human rights FIRST
International sovereignty SECOND

[ 08-11-2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[johnny]

What yorick said.

War=no rules.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Washington sent a very clear weapon to Iraqi commanders when it went to war - "Use chemical weapons and you *will* be tried for war crimes!" And then what does the US military do?

I dont see what all the fuss is about. Napalm is an incendiary munition, NOT a chemical weapon. Firebombs are in the same category as the F.A.E. bomb and the daisy cutter bomb.They explode and burn everything in their kill radius. A chem. weapon would be something mustard gas or blister gas.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Yorick: If a man is beating his wife and kids to death, we have a moral obligation to get in there and stop him.

But who decides to stop him? -> It is "Judge and Jury" and NOT just "a stronger man"
And who stops him -> again it is "Police" and not any vigilante who decides to.

Human rights FIRST International sovereignty SECOND

"Human Rights" here equals "law" in a normal trial "International sovereignty" equals "civil rights".
The strong point is that you cannot enact law while violating civil rights without becoming a felon yourself.
The elected "judge and jury" for world and countries is - for a lack of anything better - the UN who has the power to enlist parts of national armies as its police force (blue-helmets). But you get a judge by common consensus and policemen by hiring NOT by your own choice alone.

Say I suddenly decided that the justice system in my country is doing a bad job and left my house packing an assault rifle and a sawed-off shotgun (which are both illegal in my country but who cares, I did not sing/approve of that law). Then I proceed to hunt down and shoot a man I strongly believe to be a serial killer, a man who is on trial but not yet convicted. I don't think I would or should get away with this because it should not be in ONE man's power to judge.

[B_part]

As Hunter of Jahanna pointed out, what's the problem? Napalm is a conventional weapon, not a chemical one in the current sense of the term. Would you dub a flamethrower a chemical weapon? I guess not, and napalm is just a variation on the theme. It's not a pleasant way to die, but a bullet in your abdomen isn't either. Or a 20 mm A10 shell setting your tank afire.

I am not saying that I like this, but I cannot see what the fuss is all about.

Also, it has been banned for use against civilians, but I guess normal bombs are banned as well for that purpose. Or gunfire.

[Chewbacca]

So Napalm or variation of Napalm 77 is not a chemical? What long term consequences come from dropping this sort of mostly banned petroleum-based "chemical weapon"?

What about cluster bombs? We used these mostly banned wmd's in Iraq as well.