Uranium WMD in Lebanon crossfire?

Then what did you mean - third time asked - by "insipidly dangerous"?

 

It is classified by the United States as incendiary. It is legal according to the United States for use against military targets but illegal according to international law. Are you suggesting that phosphorous was legally used? Are we to consider children as military targets?

 

INSIP''ID, a. [L. insipidus; in and sapidus, sapio, to taste.]

1. Tasteless; destitute of taste; wanting the qualities which affect the organs of taste; vapid; as insipid liquor.

2. Wanting spirit, life or animation; wanting pathos, or the power of exciting emotions; flat; dull; heavy; as an insipid address; an insipid composition.

3. Wanting power to gratify desire; as insipid pleasure.

(Source: Webster's 1828)​

 

No. The executive branch of the United States gov't claimed that Sadaam was seeking WMD just before the US went in...there is a very significant difference.

 

No . . . Saddam during an interview said that "Yes, he was".

Was he truthful?

Probably not.

But, since it is the declared objective of most muslim extremists to start a new islamic crusade . . . I would have to ask if this was part of a bigger scheme . . .

 

Do you have a source for the interview?

Are you suggesting that Sadaam was a "Muslim Extremist"?

 

Did you not care about the news until after our boys (& gals) went in?

Do you believe that he is not an extremist?

 

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I cared about the news before, during and after our boys (& gals) went in. I care about them enough now to desire that they be removed and brought home so no further harm will come to them.

I do not believe he was a Muslim extremist. By most accounts he was a secular despot who killed Muslims as much as he helped them. Under his leadership he warred with the Muslim nations of Iran and Kuwait. He never attacked a Western nation and certainly never attacked the United States. What are we doing there?

 

I believe you are mistaken. The international community also classifies WP as an incendiary according to Protocol III which the US has not signed. It is legal for use against military targets according to Protocol III as well.

If it was used against a military target, it was entirely legal.

 

I want them home. I did not want us to get into this war - re-read my posts. But, we were tricked into going into the muslim world of extremism and changing truths to deceive the westerners . . . . we were deceived and we will continue to be deceived.

Where are all of those kind, peace loving muslims to take over the mission from us?

 

You are correct that Protocol III defines WP as an incendiary weapon. You are correct that the United States has not signed to protocol III. You are further correct that if it was used entirely against a military target it would be legal.

The below is the applicable prohibitions on the use of these weapons according to international law:

"Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads."

"It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons."

"It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons." (Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm) ​

The Falujah attack:

"An unknown number of Iraqi women and children died of phosphorus burns during the hostilities, Italian documentary makers covering the battle for Fallujah have claimed." (Source: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/11/16/phosphorus-fallujah051116.html) ​

The Lebanon attack:

"During the war several foreign media outlets reported that Lebanese civilians carried injuries characteristic of attacks with phosphorus, a substance that burns when it comes to contact with air. In one CNN report, a casualty with serious burns was seen lying in a South Lebanon hospital." (Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/777549.html)​

For the record, I adjust my view to reflect that White Phosporous is neither a chemical weapon nor a WMD. I maintain that the use of these weapons in these theaters to be illegal as they should not be used against civilians.

 

I said some time back, this is where courts-martial come in.

 

Wanting of power to gratify desire . . . DU does not provide the power to satisfy your need for the WMD that you are looking for . . . I would classify it in that regard as insipid . . .

It sounds like you would prefer to call it an ingenuous weapon of choice.

Pick your poison . . . ooooooops that might be considered a pun, but it is a straightforward assessment of your choices.

 

We don't use Phosporous weapons, to the best of my recolection, and the Du is "spent" very dense and not by any stretch a "nuclear weapon."

 

US defends use of phosphorus bombs in Fallujah

"The Pentagon has acknowledged using incendiary white-phosphorus munitions in a 2004 offensive against insurgents in the Iraqi city of Fallujah and defended their use as legal, amid concerns by arms control advocates." ​

 

This definition stuff sure can make ones head spin. When Saddam used White Phosphorous against the Kurds it was considered to be a chemical weapon, when the U.S. uses it against Iraqis it's considered to be an incendiary weapon. Whatever...when this stuff contacts the skin of a human being there is a chemical reaction. Seems like a chemical weapon to me but I have conceded that the United States illegally used this "incendiary" weapon against a civilian population.

As to DU, perhaps it is not nuclear (many smarter than me say that it is) but it is certainly radiological and it is certainly illegal. It is poisoning both the coalition troops who are exposed to it as well as the civilian populations. Further, it is making a waste land out of areas of this earth that will take 4.5 billion years or so to clean up and the DU particles will likely spread to other areas of the earth contaminating more than just those evil Iraqis (what did they do again?).

Regardless of how each of us desire to define these weapons, they're heinous and a moral people have no business using them against other humans.

 

Thread closing warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 2:30 pm ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle