Hollus Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Was'nt chemical weapons a big part of the so-called justification for war? But its OK for the US to rain white phosphorus all over fallujah killing all life indescriminatly? Accusations have been made of genocide in fallujah, but its hard to verify because only certain hand picked journalists are allowed to report on the city. On freelance journalist that made the trip himself, mesteriously had his hotel room broken into and his footage stollen. But here is a video that shows the raining of the phosphorus and its aftermath. It also interviews soldiers that were there and seen it themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 That first interview turned me off from this propaganda. 10 year olds were all supposed to be killed. Anyone that walked needed to be shot. Bullshit. Come on people, common sense please! White phosphorus should not be used as a weapon in civilian inhabited areas, I think everyone agrees with that. It does need to be allowed to be used in smoke screens, flares (I have a set of rescue flares that contain it as an ingredient) and in tracer rounds as well I believe. We should condemn the US for the use of this in civilian areas, I really don't think your going to start a debate with this because we are all on the same page. At least I'd hope so. This doesn't magically discredit the other great work those American troops are doing by the way, if that was your intention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollus Posted March 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 That first interview turned me off from this propaganda. 10 year olds were all supposed to be killed. Anyone that walked needed to be shot. Bullshit. Come on people, common sense please!White phosphorus should not be used as a weapon in civilian inhabited areas, I think everyone agrees with that. It does need to be allowed to be used in smoke screens, flares (I have a set of rescue flares that contain it as an ingredient) and in tracer rounds as well I believe. We should condemn the US for the use of this in civilian areas, I really don't think your going to start a debate with this because we are all on the same page. At least I'd hope so. This doesn't magically discredit the other great work those American troops are doing by the way, if that was your intention. Great work? They were better off under Saddam. Before the first gulf war Iraqi's enjoyed the highest standard of living in the middle east. That was because Saddam- who was insalled by the US and supported throughout much of his rain of terror without question- became an economic nationalist. Only when Saddam quit fallowing orders did the US see fit to fabricate information to provide pretext for military intervention. Like in the first gulf war when they said Iraqi troops were lined along Suadi Arabias boarder ready to invade. Or when they took a poll of the American people that asked whether or not they would support an invasion of Iraq if it was shown they had nuclear weapons- to which 90% said yes- then used that poll 12 years later to fabricate a pretext for war based on Saddams 'WMDs'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerryhatrick Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 This doesn't magically discredit the other great work those American troops are doing by the way, if that was your intention. I think he stated his intention. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of the US leadership. Why do rightwingers constantly use the military for their straw man arguments? It's just disrespectful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 They were better off under Saddam. Political freedom and civil rights must be really low in your list of values for a country. Not to mention protection from a government that gases it's own citizens in genocides. Before the first gulf war Iraqi's enjoyed the highest standard of living in the middle east. That's like saying Eygpt has a great standard of living. Compared to us, they live in absolute poverty, despite the potential of riches from oil revenues. Don't let anyone kid you, Iraqi's didn't share in what little wealth they had, it was controlled by Saddam and his possie. -- Iraqi's have been given a choice to pick their government, and they have in massive turnouts. Polls have showed that most Iraqi's like Saddam being gone and done with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
America1 Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Was'nt chemical weapons a big part of the so-called justification for war? But its OK for the US to rain white phosphorus all over fallujah killing all life indescriminatly? Accusations have been made of genocide in fallujah, but its hard to verify because only certain hand picked journalists are allowed to report on the city. On freelance journalist that made the trip himself, mesteriously had his hotel room broken into and his footage stollen. But here is a video that shows the raining of the phosphorus and its aftermath. It also interviews soldiers that were there and seen it themselves. 1st things 1st, “White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects.” Genocide huh, then explain how we delayed our incursion until we gave a few days notice for all civilians to get out. If we wanted to commit genocide, we'd have just destroyed the city with NO warning; even then it wouldn't be genocide b/c its not like we are trying to all shias or sunnies. We are after terrorist and insurgents, neither is a race of people.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
America1 Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 That first interview turned me off from this propaganda. 10 year olds were all supposed to be killed. Anyone that walked needed to be shot. Bullshit. Come on people, common sense please! White phosphorus should not be used as a weapon in civilian inhabited areas, I think everyone agrees with that. It does need to be allowed to be used in smoke screens, flares (I have a set of rescue flares that contain it as an ingredient) and in tracer rounds as well I believe. We should condemn the US for the use of this in civilian areas, I really don't think your going to start a debate with this because we are all on the same page. At least I'd hope so. This doesn't magically discredit the other great work those American troops are doing by the way, if that was your intention. Great work? They were better off under Saddam. Before the first gulf war Iraqi's enjoyed the highest standard of living in the middle east. That was because Saddam- who was insalled by the US and supported throughout much of his rain of terror without question- became an economic nationalist. Only when Saddam quit fallowing orders did the US see fit to fabricate information to provide pretext for military intervention. Like in the first gulf war when they said Iraqi troops were lined along Suadi Arabias boarder ready to invade. Or when they took a poll of the American people that asked whether or not they would support an invasion of Iraq if it was shown they had nuclear weapons- to which 90% said yes- then used that poll 12 years later to fabricate a pretext for war based on Saddams 'WMDs'. The US never installed saddam, Holy sh*8t do you kids need to learn some history. Saddam took power in a coup that had NOTHING to do with the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 The US supported him (and his enemies) in the Iran/Iraq little skirmish, but your right America, Saddam was not installed by the US. At least I have never found anyone remotely crediable, even stretching that word as far as Chomsky, that would say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 Well, according to US diplomat James Akins who served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time of the so-called coup says:"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often." http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html Of course the U.S. had a hand in it. Just like they had a hand in Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, and a long list of other dictatorships. Wake up people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.