You are right about that, it has not worked out well. But you see this kind of thing in the chruch too. Instead of just standing up for the Bible, we try to put a smilie face or just hide what it really say, in the intrest of being seeker sensitive. Not starting a new topic, but the need to hide things even when there is nothing wrong with them for the sake of avoding controverse is human and rampant even in the church. I to wish we would just be more straight forward and difine our visian and purpose better.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Shake And Bake
- Thread starter poncho
- Start date
It could be they were just mistaken.
After all, there was absolutely no reason to lie about the use of a legal weapon.
It could be these "U.S. officials " were the wrong people to ask in the first place and should not have answered at all if their information was "incomplete".
guitarpreacher
New Member
Fact is, no one has provided credible proof that a lie was told. The only lie I have seen is in the OP where it said the U.S. used chemical weapons. That was an outright lie. And anyone who uses a lie to prop up their polical position would be.... well, I guess that would make them a liar.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
This "inaccurate information" line is getting old folks.
We would be much btter off to be upfront from the start.
We would be much btter off to be upfront from the start.
guitarpreacher
New Member
So why would an intelligent journalist go to a european embassy employee to try to find out information on weapons used on a battlefield in Iraq? That makes no sense unless you have an agenda you want to promote and ethics and accuracy don't matter."
And when someone not at all involved in the situation doesn't know everything about the situation, why would you use that to say that the U.s. Government is lying? Total lack of ethics. If these "jouralist" (so called) really wanted the truth, why didn't they just ask the Pentagon to begin with?
And when someone not at all involved in the situation doesn't know everything about the situation, why would you use that to say that the U.s. Government is lying? Total lack of ethics. If these "jouralist" (so called) really wanted the truth, why didn't they just ask the Pentagon to begin with?
This reminds me of the indictment of Libby for lying about a crime that wasn't a crime.
Same with the WP.
Surely you don't believe, C4K, that some Lt. Col. knows all there is to know about everything that's going on in Iraq.
But I do agree he should have said " I don't know" if he didn't know, but maybe he "thought" he knew.
I can't judge. Can you? Do you have reason to believe he's lying now, other than you just want to?
Same with the WP.
Surely you don't believe, C4K, that some Lt. Col. knows all there is to know about everything that's going on in Iraq.
But I do agree he should have said " I don't know" if he didn't know, but maybe he "thought" he knew.
I can't judge. Can you? Do you have reason to believe he's lying now, other than you just want to?
Does anyone remeber the pastor Davie Rover, or Rever? He was burned in vietnam. Does anyone remember the details. He was on a pt boat on the river and they were recieving fire from the bank. They began to do battle and he was going to thorw a WP grenade. A bullet hit the grenade and it exploded in his hand. WP is an old weapon we have always used against personel if we had too.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
I think your premise is flawed in that you seem to assume that if we were totally nice and never did anything like this that the terrorists would reciprocate. I think it is very clear after 9-11 and Mr. Berg that this isn't true.
Joseph Botwinick
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10064711
According to the info in this article the wp was used on personel in such a limited fashion, it would not surprise me if the spokesmen was not aware of it. Also notice that the Italian communist party is staging a sit in at the US embassy. Do you folks really want to ally yourselves whith the Italian Communist Party against our troops and government in this. I can't believe there are any communist left after we all witnessed the massive crash of all western communist.
According to the info in this article the wp was used on personel in such a limited fashion, it would not surprise me if the spokesmen was not aware of it. Also notice that the Italian communist party is staging a sit in at the US embassy. Do you folks really want to ally yourselves whith the Italian Communist Party against our troops and government in this. I can't believe there are any communist left after we all witnessed the massive crash of all western communist.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I think your premise is flawed in that you seem to assume that if we were totally nice and never did anything like this that the terrorists would reciprocate. I think it is very clear after 9-11 and Mr. Berg that this isn't true.
Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]No premise like that at all Joseph. I have already admitted that I was wrong about WP being a chemical weapon.
My problem is with the way we are handling these things. This kind of thing happens and we wonder why we get bad press around the world. Now they say no civilians were affected. What are they going to say if someone has video of civilians in Falujah? "Sorry, we had bad information."
If there is nothing wrong the spokesmen need to say something like, "We have a full battery of weapons to achieve our objective. I am not ruling out the use of any of them."
It is foolish are best to say "No" when asked that kind of question. Not all of the bad press we get from the world media is unjustified.
guitarpreacher
New Member
This whole argument is bogus.
Flaw #1 - Apparently, the question asked was "Did the U.S. use chemical weapons in Iraq?" The answer was no, so the "journalist" changes the definition of chemical weapons and proudly pronounced that the U.S. government had lied. dishonest reporting
Flaw #2 - Instead of going to a proper source for info, these questions were asked of the Ambassador to England, Robert Tuttle, and the Ambassador to Italy. Why would think they would know what all weapons were used on the battlefield in Iraq? When you get to the bottom of the article that's linked to on the first page of this thread, you find this quote:
[Indeed, the Pentagon readily admits WP was used. Spokesman Lt Colonel Barry Venables said yesterday WP was used to obscure troop deployments and also to "fire at the enemy". He added: "It burns ... It's an incendiary weapon. That is what it does."]
So if they would have went to the proper source to beging with, there would have been no story. lazy journalism at best, probably more dishonest journalism.
There's still no credible evidence that anyone tried to deliberately mislead regarding the use of WP or Napalm.
Flaw #1 - Apparently, the question asked was "Did the U.S. use chemical weapons in Iraq?" The answer was no, so the "journalist" changes the definition of chemical weapons and proudly pronounced that the U.S. government had lied. dishonest reporting
Flaw #2 - Instead of going to a proper source for info, these questions were asked of the Ambassador to England, Robert Tuttle, and the Ambassador to Italy. Why would think they would know what all weapons were used on the battlefield in Iraq? When you get to the bottom of the article that's linked to on the first page of this thread, you find this quote:
[Indeed, the Pentagon readily admits WP was used. Spokesman Lt Colonel Barry Venables said yesterday WP was used to obscure troop deployments and also to "fire at the enemy". He added: "It burns ... It's an incendiary weapon. That is what it does."]
So if they would have went to the proper source to beging with, there would have been no story. lazy journalism at best, probably more dishonest journalism.
There's still no credible evidence that anyone tried to deliberately mislead regarding the use of WP or Napalm.
Rules either apply to everyone or to no one. The alleged 'rightness' of your cause is no excuse.
guitarpreacher
New Member
What rules would you be talking about?
ie: if Saddam had had WP and that would have justified the US/UK invasion on the basis (debateable) that WP is a WMD, then the US shouldn't use it either.
This comment of yours sprang particularly to mind.
guitarpreacher
New Member
Have you ever heard anyone say that WP is a weapon of mass destruction??? Come on!
guitarpreacher
New Member
White Phosphorus IS NOT a chemical weapon.
White Phosphorus IS NOT a weapon of mass destruction.
The United States HAS NOT used chemical weapons in Iraq, and WILL NOT use them.
N
NE from the PENTAGON (you know, the people that actually know what the military is doing) has denied that we use WP in Iraq.
Therefore, the United States HAS NOT lied to you or anybody else. In case you missed it, here's the quote from the article you guys are using to say the U.S. lied:
Indeed, the Pentagon readily admits WP was used. Spokesman Lt Colonel Barry Venables said yesterday WP was used to obscure troop deployments and also to "fire at the enemy". He added: "It burns ... It's an incendiary weapon. That is what it does."
White Phosphorus IS NOT a weapon of mass destruction.
The United States HAS NOT used chemical weapons in Iraq, and WILL NOT use them.
N
NE from the PENTAGON (you know, the people that actually know what the military is doing) has denied that we use WP in Iraq. Therefore, the United States HAS NOT lied to you or anybody else. In case you missed it, here's the quote from the article you guys are using to say the U.S. lied:
Indeed, the Pentagon readily admits WP was used. Spokesman Lt Colonel Barry Venables said yesterday WP was used to obscure troop deployments and also to "fire at the enemy". He added: "It burns ... It's an incendiary weapon. That is what it does."
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Everyone knows that TRUE Americans never ask any questions, they just do as they are told and support all their country does, no matter what.
Bunyon, were you a 54E? I was 54C. Ft McClellan, right? They closed down McClellan a few years ago, don't know where they are teaching NBC these days.
As several have stated here, WP is not classified as a chemical weapon by Geneva Convention, and nations have used WP and napalm legally for many years.
Having said that, I personally would rather that WP was used only as marker rounds or smoke. Using on human targets opens us to charges of being inhumane, even if our guys make every effort to avoid non-combatant casualties. Just my opinion.