We found the WMDs!

Who says there are no chemical or biological weapons in Iraq? There appears to be plenty:

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

If you need visual evidence, go here.

Update: Meanwhile, the Bush regime has declared Antarctica the next target of it’s war on terrorism:

President Bush has listed the motives for such a surprising decision: “First of all, penguins have still not declared their support for USA, which means they support the international terrorism. Secondly, we have reliable information that penguins possess weapons of mass destruction or WMD’s, hided in giant glaciers. The US Government has made repeated inquires to penguins to send in Antarctica the commissions of international experts for investigation, but they gave no response. So we cannot longer tolerate such state of things.”

  1. The “chemical” that seems to have been dropped was White Phosphorous. It is used a marking round for artillery adjustment or an obscurant during combat. It has been around since WWII (I think). If you are in the wrong place when it is dropped, it can kill you.

    However, it is not considered a WMD or a chemical weapon and it is NOT an “outlawed” weapon.

    Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

  2. The problem with weapons of this kind, is that they are indiscriminate (they don’t just kill soldiers, but everyone with the area) and also lead to slow death. Plus, it’s not like we don’t have bombs to make the deaths instant.

    lol. I also find it funny that it’s not an “outlawed” weapon. So what? Neither is HydroFlouric acid, but it’s certainly a chemical weapon and will kill the person slowly over time.

    btw, even the BBC is picking this up

    Sure, this story is 1-sided, but I’d love to here the government’s side of things… because they must have authorized the soldiers to do such things.

  3. I don’t doubt that this chemical was used. I don’t doubt that it caused harm. It would be hard to convince me that its use should not be discontinued.

    What I don’t think, however, was that it was intentionally used as a weapon. I think that the harm it did, although serious, was not intentional (at least I hope).

  4. So, the Pentagon is falling back on rhetorical tricks to keep white phosphorus on the “not illegal” list. Does that also make it ‘not immoral’?

    I mean, c’mon. The basic difference between white phosphorus and napalm is that one uses jet fuel to adhere to and burn the human body while the other uses gasoline. They melt both suspected insurgents and the gleam of some mother’s eye in exactly the same barbaric manner.

    That’d be, to the bone.

    Would those people who readily jump on the let’s-dissolve-junior-and-grandma bandwagon still be aboard if the people to become ‘collateral damage’ were ones they personally gave a damn about?

    Of course not; the whole story would change then.

    Because if indiscriminately slaughtering innocent people is okay(and these apologists invariably see themselves as the most guilt-free of all), well then, they and theirs become fair game too, now don’t they?

    So, to have any credibility, apologists for using white phosphorus would have to be able to look into their own terrified daughter’s eyes as she writhed in agony and say, ‘Gee, princess, sorry, but freedom’s not free.” They’d have to be able to give good old mom a Stepford smile while she suffers a zyklon B death with a human candle twist.

    Other than sociopaths, how many amongst us would really be able to do that?

  5. If any of you were ever in a combat fight for your life and the lives of all your buddies going down to the one yard line, white phosphorous and napalm would look good to you. What the hell do you think war is all about? It is not a joke nor is it a pretty sight. I say everything and anything is up for use, from a knife fight to burning the bastards to death.

    I am alive today because I did not blink. You can have your opinions about me and those like me and I do not care. If I had not used and done what was necessary at the time, my family would not be here. Stephen, keep that in mind, son. You know some of my story. You know it is for real.

    You will never know or understand what it is all about. All you can do is speculate. Some of you do not deserve to have an opinion on this issue. You can by the fact that you live in the USA.

    Here we go again with the armchair generals and wanna be diplomats still wet behind the ears trying to have an opinion on issues that they know nothing about. Go live it then come back and talk to me about it.

  6. Julian,

    You are missing the point. We supposedly went to war with Iraq because they had “weapons of mass destruction”. Then we go and use WMDs against them. Do you not see the problem with that?

    Radley Balko sums it up nicely:

    “…we’ve become what we’ve claimed we’re fighting against. This war grows more absurd by the day.”


  7. The U.S. has also advanced leaps and bounds with regards to technology since Vietnam. The antiquated tactic of dropping napalm, phosphorus or any other “carpet” bomb is no longer necessary.

    I will not even go into the known fact that all of our branches of military have gone through extensive restructuring and changes in training for elite forces.

    BTW, Julian… just so you know… I do not dispute the use to save pinned troops in Vietnam. I dispute the overall planning of the war… but hey… who am I.

    I see no need for blanket destruction at this point. But then I do base this opinion on information I learn from stairing at the boob-tube all day! ;-)

  8. This is my opinion for what it is worth in today’s world. One must think long and hard before going to war. Once the decision is made, anything goes and I mean anything goes. There will always be civilian casualties. Do you really believe our enemies care about our civilian casualties such as 9/11? You know the answer is a resounding NO.

    Again, anything goes in war. I don’t give a damn what any of you think or believe or how cruel and gross I may be. Guys like me may end up being your best friend if it comes down to them or us. Keep that in your peacenik peanut brains. I will not be swayed on this issue. I say kick the crap out of them, make them never want to even think or believe they can take us on any any method or place.

    This is the solution to the problem. Our enemies now know there are many, many of you that have no guts and cannot stand the idea of losses in a war. If we do not take a stand including using any and all weapons at our disposal whether you call them weapons of mass destruction or whatever, we are doomed. Is that not the idea in a war? Kill and maim as many of them as possible so they are decimated in numbers, will and resources so they cannot be a threat? You people need to get real.

  9. Julian,

    While I appreciate the input from someone apparently on the front lines, I find many of your points less than consistent. For example:

    “One must think long and hard before going to war.”

    All indications are that our leadership did NOT do this before launching the war on Iraq– no post-war planning, no exit plan, inadequate supplies, a total lack of evidence that Iraq was in cahoots with Al Qaeda in the first place, etc.

    “There will always be civilian casualties.”

    Of course there will be. Does this mean we should indiscriminately and apathetically add to the list? If killing innocent people is honky dory, then you’d stick to that line if it happened to your own family too, right?

    Do you really believe our enemies care about our civilian casualties such as 9/11?”

    No, of course not. Al Qaeda wanted as many Americans to die as possible. But what did 9/11 have to do with Iraq– there’s been no credible evidence given us, only discredited stuff, in the two and a half years since we attacked?

    And do we really want to set our own moral standards by those of murdering terrorists? Doesn’t that just make us monsters, too? If you’re saying that killing innocent people is not immoral then what is your charge against Al Qaeda?

    “Again, anything goes in war.”

    I don’t fault any soldier for carrying out their orders, but when the war itself is based in lies, I hold those responsible for disseminating those lies responsible. If “anything goes in war,” and war can be waged based on nothing, then truly what you’re saying is that ‘anything goes in life.’

    Do we really want to go back to such a Darwinian, might-makes-right world? Aren’t standards of decency a good thing?

    “Guys like me may end up being your best friend if it comes down to them or us. Keep that in your peacenik peanut brains.”

    Ah, the persuasiveness of name-calling. You’re saying that a guy who throws unfounded insults at me is going to be my “best friend?” Sorry, but I don’t think I could ever trust someone as baselessly self-righteous as that, let alone have him as a best friend.

    Maybe what you’re really trying to say here is that people talk principle but are more than willing to abandon it for an additional sense of security, kind of like Nicholson’s famous “you want me on that wall” statement from A Few Good Men. Not the case; I think we should brave enough to try to both survive AND hold onto our principles.

    “I will not be swayed on this issue. I say kick the crap out of them, make them never want to even think or believe they can take us on any any method or place.”

    Sure, take out any terrorists. But if it’s innocent people that we’re kicking the crap out of, not guilty people, then we’re just thugs ourselves, no different from terrorists in principle or action. Would you say any different of someone who kicked the crap out of your own, presumably innocent family.

    “This is the problem. Our enemies now know there are many, many of you that have no guts and cannot stand the idea of losses in a war.”

    I think it takes more “guts” to live by principle than to run around indiscriminately melting innocent women and children. Isn’t the point of having troops in the first place to protect American principles and not just American bodies?

    If we’re just looking to keep down mortality rate by ANY means, well then, we could have better achieved that by keeping our troops at home, couldn’t we – where the death rate would be zero and our principles still intact?

    “If we do not take a stand including using any and all weapons at our disposal whether you call them weapons of mass destruction or whatever, we are doomed.”

    How ‘brave’ or ‘free’ or ‘moral’ a country can we claim to be if we cower and abandon principles as soon as someone shouts that people who hang on to them are “doomed?”

    Living by our principles, granted, will at times result in the loss of some additional troops– but hey, it’s our refusal to lower our own standards which makes us proud, not our willingness to degenerate into terrorists ourselves.

    I guess that it all boils down to this: you feel that the only way to survive immoral thugs is to take up the tools of immoral thugs. I feel that our principles have served us well for 229 years now, and that our determination to continue that path is the only thing that qualifies us as both free AND brave.

  10. G.I.

    I am not inconsistent. Remember, Congress voted for the invasion of Iraq after thinking long and hard for over 10 years.

    Once the war was on, then anything and everything we have should have been used. Our mistake was letting so many of those bastards live to come back and kill the troops. A real war would be to kill every one of them and any left standing, kill them too.

    That is precisely what went wrong in Vietnam and now Iraq. Our military on the orders of and financing by our civilian leaders develop a killing machine, send them to war and then tell them to have compassion and restraint once the bullets are flying.

    To hell with that. Iraq would be kissing our ass if our military had been truly turned loose to do their job. We would not even be having this discussion if that had happened. Everyone would still be celebrating a victory over the terrorist, Saddam. Syria, Iran, the Palestenians, and every other terrorist nation and group in the world would be on their knees begging for mercy once they saw the results of our awesome power unleashed on even one nation. End of discussion.

  11. Julian,

    I’m going to put all possible points of debate aside as to your historical accuracy and the longterm effectiveness of the ‘total war’ approach you advocate, and I also won’t bother go in to the many clear inconsistencies of our leaders between word and deed: I believe you when you said you “will not be swayed.”

    But as to possible inconsistency on your own behalf, here’s one obvious, very basic point that strikes me as inconsistent. Maybe you can point out where I’m wrong:

    One of the administration’s latter explanations for invading Iraq was that it was a mission of mercy — we were to ‘free the Iraqi people,’ we wished to bring them ‘democracy’ and ‘justice.’ How do you reconcile this declaration of mercy with your own call for mercilessness?

    “I say kick the crap out of them”; “Kill and maim as many of them as possible”; “A real war would be to kill every one of them and any left standing, kill them too”; “our awesome power unleashed”– these goals seem total opposites to me.

%d bloggers like this: