Who Is Lying About Iraq?

[Gringao]

Well . . . just for arguments sake . . . what makes it any different to the American invasions of Somalia or Granada or Panama??

I must have missed that part where Reagan and Bush declared Somalia, Panama and Grenada our "51st State" and proceeded to annex them as such.

 

[Gringao]

Bull manure!!!!

Abusing civilains is SOP for AMericans . . .

Nothing supporting your assertions, I see. As such, it's actually superior to your usual wild-eyed hyperventilations about the CIA - an organization that can't even find its shoes in the morning - controlling everything. Good for you, Don!

 

[Peregrinator]

Bull manure!!!!

Abusing civilains is SOP for AMericans . . .

Don...we don't "know" each other all that well, so I can only hope that you have a sense of me to give me credibility with you...

You're mistaken about this. I'm a member of the US military--and, believe me, there is plenty to criticize--but this ain't accurate. And I'm not a "hooah" Kool-Aid drinking type, btw; I joined rather late in life and with a pretty firmly established left-leaning and cynical mindset. I've done things like argue in favor of the ACLU to other guys in my unit. Believe me, I'm not indoctrinated in any sense of the term. But I can tell you that I've been surprised and impressed with the US military's efforts to keep the behavior of their troops above reproach. Sure, there are failures and whatnot, mistakes get made, but it's startling how much time and energy goes into trying to teach a bunch of kids to behave ethically.

 

[Peregrinator]

I must have missed that part where Reagan and Bush declared Somalia, Panama and Grenada our "51st State" and proceeded to annex them as such.

Holy shit, can you imagine? Sharing a border with Colombia? Electing a governor of Somalia? Jesus. Grenada would be okay, but I don't know that anyone would notice if we annexed it. They all speak English and watch CNN now, or at least they did when I was there in '97. Great med school and snorkeling.....

 

[Borscht]

They found an "underbriefed ambassador" and then, when his answers didn't match what was going on in the field, said the US lied? Jesus, that's rich.

Try reading it again.

I'll even help you.


The Pentagon's admission - despite earlier denials - that US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year is more than a public relations issue - it has opened up a debate about the use of this weapon in modern warfare.


The admission contradicted a statement this week from the new and clearly under-briefed US ambassador in London Robert Holmes Tuttle that US forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons".

The official line to that point had been that WP, or Willie Pete to use its old name from Vietnam, was used only to illuminate the battlefield and to provide smoke for camouflage.

 

[Sean]

Thank god the British press has more balls than in the US.

 

[Borscht]

I believe the discussion was “against civilians”. It’s already been agreed that they used it, that it’s legal.

To be clear:

Using white phosphorous as a weapon is illegal under the Geneva convention.

It is legal under US law, though, as the US didn't sign the relevant sections.

However, in terms of international law, that is irrelevant.

The US practice of using indirect fire weapons to drop white phosphorous into civilian areas is a war crime, which is why your government lied about it.

Obviously, you think that this is acceptable.

Good for you.

 

[Borscht]

Thank god the British press has more balls than in the US.

A spayed cat has more balls than most of the US media.

The advertisers get jumpy if they start upsetting the consumers.

 

[Borscht]

Borscht prefers meaningless rhetoric. Arguing with him is the same as arguing with woody. They love whackjob theories that have no basis in fact, then challenge you to prove them wrong.

I must admit, your whackjob theories are entertaining.

There are so many its tough to pick a favourite, but here are the top three.

1 - The US has never used WP as a weapon.

2 - Bush attacked Iraq because of its vast arsenal of WMDs.

3 - US troops don't torture people (or desecrate the bodies of the dead).

Now tell us all about the connecton between Elvis and Area 51.

 

[Slowlane]

Oh, I see . . . firsthand accounts from U$ military personnel firing the canisters is not "credible evidence"?? Who are we kidding now??

Post it.

 

[Peregrinator]

To be clear:

Using white phosphorous as a weapon is illegal under the Geneva convention.

It is legal under US law, though, as the US didn't sign the relevant sections.

However, in terms of international law, that is irrelevant.

The US practice of using indirect fire weapons to drop white phosphorous into civilian areas is a war crime, which is why your government lied about it.

Obviously, you think that this is acceptable.

Good for you.

*sigh*

I was trained as a mortar crewman, 11Charlie in military parlance. When I was in mortar school in 2001, we were specifically and repeatedly told that willy pete was illegal to use against people, whether they were combatants, civilians, English sports fans, vanilla gorillas, Clint Eastwood lookalikes, whatever. We could not use it as a weapon against human beings. Period.

To be fair, there was a bit of nod-and-a-wink; when one soldier asked a ds if it ever happened anyway, he was told that sometimes it's hard to illuminate something without getting some "collateral damage." Kinda like the .50-cal machine gun, which is only supposed to be used against equipment. Conveniently, almost any combatant will be wearing equipment on his or her torso. The rule is, no willie pete against people. That was the emphasis, it was drilled into us.

There's a balance between rules of engagement and practical necessity in combat. If a crowd of armed people are charging toward you, firing and throwing grenades and such, it's likely that you'll use any weapon at your disposal. That's war.

 

[Slowlane]

To be clear:

Using white phosphorous as a weapon is illegal under the Geneva convention.

It is legal under US law, though, as the US didn't sign the relevant sections.

However, in terms of international law, that is irrelevant.

The US practice of using indirect fire weapons to drop white phosphorous into civilian areas is a war crime, which is why your government lied about it.

Obviously, you think that this is acceptable.

Good for you.

If you have any credible evidence of the deliberate use of phosphorous against civilians by the US military. (Not the opinion of some left wing journalist)

Post it.

 

[Slowlane]

I must admit, your whackjob theories are entertaining.

There are so many its tough to pick a favourite, but here are the top three.

1 - The US has never used WP as a weapon.

2 - Bush attacked Iraq because of its vast arsenal of WMDs.

3 - US troops don't torture people (or desecrate the bodies of the dead).

Now tell us all about the connecton between Elvis and Area 51.

Tell us about the connection between you and the terrorists.

 

[Borscht]

At no point in time has America copied Saddam,s methods.

Saddam used WMDs against the Kurds.

America used WMDs against the Fallujans.

The point is that what happened in the prison, in no way compares to Saddam.

Not according to Gringao. Just about the only justification he can find for all the torture and murder is that Saddam did it too.

The next point is that those people in the wrong are being prosecuted.

The only people being prosecuted are those whose abuses were caught on camera and broadcast around the world.

 

[Slowlane]

Saddam used WMDs against the Kurds.

America used WMDs against the Fallujans.

Exactly, we haven’t.

Not according to Gringao. Just about the only justification he can find for all the torture and murder is that Saddam did it too.

Take that up with him. I find him to be perfectly capable of taking care of himself.

The only people being prosecuted are those whose abuses were caught on camera and broadcast around the world.

If you have any evidence of any crimes that aren’t being investigated you should report it to the proper authorities.

 

[Borscht]

If you have any credible evidence of the deliberate use of phosphorous against civilians by the US military. (Not the opinion of some left wing journalist)

Post it.

The Pentagon has admitted that it uses indirect fire weapons to drop white phosphorous into civilian areas.

You're starting to remind me of Zarqawi. He blew up a Jordanian hotel, then released a statement saying that he hadn't been targetting the people inside it.

 

[Borscht]

Door thwarts quick exit for Bush

The president had seemed annoyed at a reporter's question
President George W Bush tried to make a quick exit from a news conference in Beijing on Sunday - only to find himself thwarted by locked doors.
The president strode away from reporters looking annoyed after one said he appeared "off his game".

President Bush tugged at both handles on the double doors before admitting: "I was trying to escape. Obviously, it didn't work."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4454738.stm

I know it ain't relevant, but I can't resist throwing this into the discussion.

 

[Slowlane]

The Pentagon has admitted that it uses indirect fire weapons to drop white phosphorous into civilian areas.

You're starting to remind me of Zarqawi. He blew up a Jordanian hotel, then released a statement saying that he hadn't been targetting the people inside it.

Post it.

 

[Gringao]

Try reading it again.

I'll even help you.

I read it, and I also read the link to the BBC's website. It wasn't quite so sure about the illegality (highly conditional) as you are, even for signatories to the CWC - which the US is not.

 

[Gringao]

To be clear:

Using white phosphorous as a weapon is illegal under the Geneva convention.

It is legal under US law, though, as the US didn't sign the relevant sections.

However, in terms of international law, that is irrelevant.

The US practice of using indirect fire weapons to drop white phosphorous into civilian areas is a war crime, which is why your government lied about it.

Obviously, you think that this is acceptable.

Good for you.

Not even the article you cited goes that far, and the reality is even less supportive of your strident accusations.

 

[zipman]

Admittedly, not much. To give the right a little credit, they have had a lot to do dealing with the attacks from the left.
The left has no plan, so the criticize the right for having no plan.
The left has been lying, so they accuse the right of lying.

If they would stop the bull shit and become part of the solution instead of part of the problem, it would help us all a great deal.

They don’t like what’s going on but I don’t see them trying to use the proper channels to do anything about it.
Any one of then could introduce legislation proposing a plan for the war – they haven’t done so.
Any one of them could introduce legislation proposing a plan to reduce the deficit – they haven’t done so.

The right, even though the ideas may be wrong, have been working on the end of the war, social security and the economy. All the left has done is bitch.

Actually, if the administration had spent a little more time being honest about what is going on in Iraq, the left wouldn't have to waste time demanding honesty and accountability.

After 9/11 Bush had total bipartisan support and he and his administration squandered it by not being honest about what was going on in Iraq.

Take the "last throes of the insurgency" comment for example. In an effort to continually spin positives out of a bad situation, they continued comprimising their credibility which was severely damaged by the bad intelligence used as a basis for this war.

As for making recommendations, when has Bush or the administration taken any? His own commanders recommended that they needed more troops but since the commander didn't formally request it, they weren't sent. All along, this war has been incredibly poorly managed as the article which you so quickly discounted points out.

Thankfully, with every day that passes more and more americans of both parties are seeing that this is not an administration capable of providing honest and accurate information.

More so, we are now doing things that go against decades of official policy such as having secret prisons in other countries, detaining people for years without charges or a trial, using WP for more than illumination, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Gringao]

Not according to Gringao. Just about the only justification he can find for all the torture and murder is that Saddam did it too.

I'm not sure if you're this morally stunted or just a deliberate prevaricator. I never said any such thing and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

 

[miles]

I must admit, your whackjob theories are entertaining.

There are so many its tough to pick a favourite, but here are the top three.

1 - The US has never used WP as a weapon.

2 - Bush attacked Iraq because of its vast arsenal of WMDs.

3 - US troops don't torture people (or desecrate the bodies of the dead).

Now tell us all about the connecton between Elvis and Area 51.

You're an idiot.

 

[Don K Dyck]

They're the ones shooting at you, dumbass.

Now Mules . . . that is not necessarily so in Baghdad . . . they could be the ones just blowing themselves up beside you . . .

. . . or in Basra they could be the UK Marines setting car bombs in the street . . .

But then surely the rule is if they wear a head covering they must be "terrorists" . . . and so targets . . . but we'll never know the full extent of American killing of Iraqi civilians because there is no tally of civilians, only terrorists . . . just 100% freedom fighters who want the AMeriKKKans out of their country so that they can be have the freedom to do what tehy want, when they want, without being ruled by an foreign imperialist power intent on carpet-bagging their natural resources . . .

<funny how the Roman church requires women to cover their head in church . . . >

 

[miles]

Now Mules . . . that is not necessarily so in Baghdad . . . they could be the ones just blowing themselves up beside you . . .

. . . or in Basra they could be the UK Marines setting car bombs in the street . . .

But then surely the rule is if they wear a head covering they must be "terrorists" . . . and so targets . . . but we'll never know the full extent of American killing of Iraqi civilians because there is no tally of civilians, only terrorists . . . just 100% freedom fighters who want the AMeriKKKans out of their country so that they can be have the freedom to do what tehy want, when they want, without being ruled by an foreign imperialist power intent on carpet-bagging their natural resources . . .

<funny how the Roman church requires women to cover their head in church . . . >

Is Borscht your alt?