US used white phosphorus in Iraq

[DjTj]

Which is why it makes no sense why the Democrats insisted on dragging it on in public. It should have been acknowledged and then handled behind close doors. But that wouldn't have given the Dems anything to use against the administration in the public forum. If they were truly concerned with a positive outcome in Iraq, they'd act like it. Instead, they're more concerned with gaining political points and regaining power.

Is it the Democrats? The Abu Ghraib photos must have come from the Defense Department somewhere. The secret prisons may have been leaked by Republican Senate staff. Cheney's energy meetings were leaked through White House documents?

Maybe you can blame the press, but you can't blame the Democratic Party for discussing information that is already out there. The article that began this thread came from the BBC citing Italian journalists, not from American sources.

[chomerics]

When you tie the hands of your military by limiting their arsenal for political reasons, you might as well give up in advance. See Vietnam for an example. War is disgusting and ugly. But when you're engaged in it, you empower your military to use whatever legal weapons they deem necessary to achieve their goals with a minimal of American losses.

That is completely untrue. Why don't we use nukes? That would get the job done right? Why don't we just nuke the place?

The reason why is because what I posted before.

Being overly concerned about what others think is a disaster in the making.

And the difference between dropping a precision guided bomb vs a WP one is? Does it give us THAT great of an advantage? You need allies to fight teooroism, isolationist forign policy is bound to fail if you do not have others on board.

That's why we stopped short of Baghdad in the first Gulf war. Had we continued on, Iraq might have been much further along.

No, we didn't go into Iraq before because of the reasons we face today. It was the correct decision not to go to Baghdad. We held Saddam in check for 12 years, and he could cause no harm to us. Now, we have no idea what will happen. We replaced a secular regime, albiet brutal, with an islamic fundamentalist one. I do not look at that as progress, but regression.

[Larry]

Actually, DjTj, what I was going to point out was that this post (from stevenaa) indicates exactly what's wrong with this administration and the political movement that has put them in power: The belief that "morality" means "don't get caught".

None of the events I described were secret, even before they were "revealed".

(I'll admit, I wasn't really certain about the black prisons till recently, although there have been reports of them in the press for over a year. But even then: Some of these sites were located, for example, inside Afghan prisons. How many Afghanis knew about them, 1,000?. Hard to hide a secret prison-within-a-prison from the guards. Or the cooks.)

But what I was referring to with our now-well-known likeing for torture comes from the people we've "disapeared" who've then been let go.

6-9 months ago, an Italian judge issued warrants for several fake US IDs, because of an Italian citizen who was kidnapped by people traveling on fake US passports, who forced him into a van which was then allowed into a US military base without being stopped by base security. While the kidnappers were on their cell phones to Langly. (And to the Colonel in charge of base security.) They then delivered him to a jet owned by "a private corporation" (that has permission to use military airfields), flown to another military base in Germany, and then to (Egypt?)

We've seen interviews with Canadian citizens that the US government has kidnapped from the international terminal at JFK and shipped to Syria for "questioning".

And George Bush personally states that "we don't use torture", while Dick Cheney is telling Congress (but only the Republican Congress) that we cannot possibly fight a war without torture, but we are, trust us.

The entire world's known he was lieing for years. None of these "revelations" have caused this damage. The bald-faced lieing has caused it. The Bushies simply thought they were getting away with it, because their loyal, gullible base was willing to hold their noses and pretend like they were buying it.

[Tarhog]

Now, we have no idea what will happen. We replaced a secular regime, albiet brutal, with an islamic fundamentalist one. I do not look at that as progress, but regression.

You yourself just got done arguing that it doesn't matter what we think.

And in this case it doesn't. It matters what the Iraqi people ultimately think. I suspect you might be shocked, once you get away from the demonstrators that get 99% of the airtime on TV, how much support for getting Saddam the hell out of power there was, and still is. Whether or not the US intervention proves to result in a major improvement in that area of the world isn't a question anyone can reasonably answer yet. But my assessment is, you'd be hard-pressed for it to have made things worse.

If you're an Iraqi citizen that is.

[Predicto]

Which is why it makes no sense why the Democrats insisted on dragging it on in public. It should have been acknowledged and then handled behind close doors. But that wouldn't have given the Dems anything to use against the administration in the public forum. If they were truly concerned with a positive outcome in Iraq, they'd act like it. Instead, they're more concerned with gaining political points and regaining power.

You don't think they have been asking behind closed doors for the past two years?

[Predicto]

Being overly concerned about what others think is a disaster in the making. That's why we stopped short of Baghdad in the first Gulf war. Had we continued on, Iraq might have been much further along.

Actually, we stopped short of Baghdad because we were afraid that if Saddam was completely toppled, there would be no effective counter to the Iranian religious zealots in that part of the world.

[chomerics]

Thats a thoughtful reply - and I can understand the basis for your argument. But I think you mistake why we are hated. We are hated because we WIN, because we are powerful, because we are rich, and because we CAN and occasionally DO impose our will on other nations. Its been said many many times, and it bears saying again, no other nation in the history of the world has had the power to absolutely dominate others and used it so judiciously.

I don't think I "mistake" why they hate us, but I disagree with you on the reasons they hate us. I do not think it is jealousy per say, but our meddling in their affairs. We've been screwing around with puppet regimes for the past 40 years in the Middle East, and I don't think it is just coincidence that our two biggest enemies (Saddam and Osama) were once our allies. It is our support for brutal regimes (Shah in Iran) that initially started the hatred, then our support for Israel, backing the mujhadeen and leaving the country for ruin after Russia left, bases in Saudi Arabia etc etc. We've been meddling in that neck of the woods for quite some time, and they've become really pissed at us, to the point of killing themselves just to kill some of us.

Do you honestly think the neighbors of combatants (or for that matter, non-combatants) who are killed by US forces feel any less outrage when they're blown up with traditional weapons (and btw, white phosphorus weapons have been commonly used for 1/2 a century)? I just see this as a red herring, someone stretching the definition of 'chemical weapons' to an absurd length. White Phosphorus, not matter how its delivered, is a area weapon, but its a very limited area weapon. You can't compare it to say, Sarin, of which an equal amount aerosolized could kill 10,000 people. Its like comparing a firecracker to a grenade - there is no comparison. I'm not arguing it won't kill you dead (and as pointed out, in extremely unpleasant ways) if you're unlucky enough to be engaged with it. But its NOT a 'chemical weapon', and I think it cheapens the discussion to treat it as such.

I agree that it is a red herring, but the similitude to the torture fiasco speaks volumes. . .similar to Abu Ghriab in terms of symbolism. Both take the form of the anti-American point of view, as it is not American to do these things. Stuff like this happens under Saddam, not the US. And I do know, WP isn't even remotely close to sarin or vx or some other WMD, I stated that in my first post, but the symbolism is there. People look and see us using a chemical, WP, then putting it in bombs and vola, they have already conjured up we are using WMDs. We both know that is not the case, but we both know that others do not perceive the world as we do. There are PLENTY of people who will look at WP and instantly link the two. It is things like this that should have been avoided, because it destroys our credibility. It is not tying our hands either, because we could use a regular bomb to accomplish the same casualties.

As for the whole philosophical difference we have, I think what you're arguing is that if only we showed respect for other nations, cultures, didn't try to impose our system on them, things would be different. I don't believe its true. But even if it was, it has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with this conversation - which is related to whats a fair and just application of violence in warfare. The military is designed to kill. Thats all. Any other approach to problem-solving is political, and one the military is likely ill-suited to accomplish.

Respect for other nations, yes I think we should show that. It is how you should run a country IMO. You should not act arrogant, even when you can. You should never act like the tough guy even when you know you are. I am definately a fan of humility, that is for sure, and I think it is a real charactor strength.

Even with that aside, I understand what the military is, and what they are designed for. That does not mean that we should use every weapon in our arsenal. We didn't drop a tactical nuke on Faluija because of moral issues, so we have aready drawn the line. The question is where do you put it at a time of war? WP, IMO, should not have been used because of the reasons I listed. I understand it has benifits, but I think it was a bad decision, because it undermines our efforts on other fronts. It is the exact same reason why I am against torture, it has an eroding effect from the inside out. It allows a sinister side of humanity to be unleashed, and then it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

[chomerics]

You yourself just got done arguing that it doesn't matter what we think.

touche but I think you know what I was getting at.

And in this case it doesn't. It matters what the Iraqi people ultimately think. I suspect you might be shocked, once you get away from the demonstrators that get 99% of the airtime on TV, how much support for getting Saddam the hell out of power there was, and still is. Whether or not the US intervention proves to result in a major improvement in that area of the world isn't a question anyone can reasonably answer yet. But my assessment is, you'd be hard-pressed for it to have made things worse.

If you're an Iraqi citizen that is.

I actually agree with your statement. I am just more concerned about our citizens then the Iraqi citizens.

As for the regression, you already know my stance on religion, and I thing replacing a secular regime with a islamofascist one is regression. You can argue the democracy point, but the problem is that if Islam is part of the government, then it really isn't a democracy is it?

[Larry]

Actually, we stopped short of Baghdad because we were afraid that if Saddam was completely toppled, there would be no effective counter to the Iranian religious zealots in that part of the world.

I saw evidence to support that theory.

One item from Desert Storm that really stuck in my mind as significant was from a Schwartzkopf press conference, where he said that the fighting was pretty much over, except for this one area. He saplained that there was still fighting in that one place because the orders were to destroy Iraq's armour, but to leave their infantry as intact as possible, and in this one place their armor and infantry were intermixed, so it was taking longer.

Only reason I can think of for having orders to leave part of an enemy's army intact, is because you want Iraq, after Desert Storm, to have no offensive capability, but you want them to have a defense.

[nelms]

touche but I think you know what I was getting at.

I actually agree with your statement. I am just more concerned about our citizens then the Iraqi citizens.

As for the regression, you already know my stance on religion, and I thing replacing a secular regime with a islamofascist one is regression. You can argue the democracy point, but the problem is that if Islam is part of the government, then it really isn't a democracy is it?

Please explain to everyone how the current democratically elected Iraqi government is an Islamofacist one. <This should be good>

[chomerics]

Please explain to everyone how the current democratically elected Iraqi government is an Islamofacist one. <This should be good>

Have you read the constitution?

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

I do not view government sponsered religion as being democratic, I think in order to have a democratic society, you need to eliminate any melding of religion and power. This is going backwards, not forwards.

[Kilmer17]

Have you read the constitution?

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

I do not view government sponsered religion as being democratic, I think in order to have a democratic society, you need to eliminate any melding of religion and power. This is going backwards, not forwards.

chom, do you think that any govt with a state sponsored religion is non-democratic? Or just applied to Islam?

[nelms]

Have you read the constitution?

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

I do not view government sponsered religion as being democratic, I think in order to have a democratic society, you need to eliminate any melding of religion and power. This is going backwards, not forwards.

And where does this prove that the government is an Islamofacist one, as you indicated? And this is going backwards from Hussein's government????, which killed thousands upon thousands of Iraqis.

Granted, this is not separation of church and state, but it is has not been proven that this government will rule as an Islamofascist one.

[chomerics]

chom, do you think that any govt with a state sponsored religion is non-democratic?

Yes, I do and I also think this answers Nelms' question. . .

I mean Iran is a "democracy" in your (Nelms) eyes right?

[BlueTalon]

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

I do not view government sponsered religion as being democratic, I think in order to have a democratic society, you need to eliminate any melding of religion and power. This is going backwards, not forwards.

Perhaps you'd be happy if they moved backward/forward all the way to the Saddam Hussein level of secularism?

But -- if the Iraqis pay as much attention to the text of their consitution as liberals here do to the text of ours, you may not have much to worry about.

(edit) About the white phosphorus -- I learned in a chemistry class that nuclear explosions are really chemical reactions (among other things). While that may be true it, would be misleading to call nukes "chemical weapons". EVERYTHING would be a "chemical weapon" in that case.

So anyone calling white phosphorus a chamical weapon is either being intentionally misleading, or doesn't understand what the term refers to.

[airborneskins]

So anyone calling white phosphorus a chamical weapon is either being intentionally misleading, or doesn't understand what the term refers to.

It is the latter. Kind of like all of the people that aren't lawyers trying to talk in Legal terms. (they don't quite get it right)

[Kilmer17]

Yes, I do and I also think this answers Nelms' question. . .

I mean Iran is a "democracy" in your (Nelms) eyes right?

No, I dont believe that it is.

I do believe though that Turkey is a Democracy, and they clearly have a state sponsored religion.

That also doesnt begin to discuss the dozens of democracies with "western" religions. Israel, England, Spain, Italy etc.

I think dismissing a govt as Undemocratic simply because they have a state sponsored religion is wrong.

[chomerics]

No, I dont believe that it is.

I do believe though that Turkey is a Democracy, and they clearly have a state sponsored religion.

That also doesnt begin to discuss the dozens of democracies with "western" religions. Israel, England, Spain, Italy etc.

I think dismissing a govt as Undemocratic simply because they have a state sponsored religion is wrong.

You define democracy different then me, as I think that democracy is freedom. Sponsering a religion is nothing about freedom, it is about control of a population. We have history to show us its past failures, and it will fail in the future as well.

[Kilmer17]

IF a free people decide they want a state sponsored religion, how is that NOT democratic?

Do you have a basis for your own definition of Democracy? Or is it just your own belief?

[chomerics]

IF a free people decide they want a state sponsored religion, how is that NOT democratic?

If free people decide that they want a dictator how is that not democratic?

Do you have a basis for your own definition of Democracy? Or is it just your own belief?

Yes I do, our country. There was a reason our founding fathers didn't want a state sponsered religion, and there are numerous quotes on the matter. I hold a lot of what they said true to my own beliefs, in that the only free government is one that is free from religion.

here are a few from Jefferson. . .

"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights."

"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others."

"The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and... if any act shall be... passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm

I especially like this one by Madison. . .

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

[Kilmer17]

Without getting into the argument over the establishment clause, let me ask this.

Why do you think it was added as an Amendment and not part of the body itself?

My point is that our founding father may have thought OUR democracy needed to be void of a state sponsored religion, but that doesnt mean that EVERY democracy shall be the same.

Our FFs also thought that slavery was an acceptable practice and that slaves only counted a 3/5 of a person.

And to further the point, do you believe that England is a domcracy?

[Predicto]

And to further the point, do you believe that England is a domcracy?

Of course, England does not have a constitution that provides that the doctrines of the Church of England shall be paramount over Acts of Parliament, and not law shall be passed that contradicts the teachings of the Church of England.

[Kilmer17]

Of course, England does not have a constitution that provides that the doctrines of the Church of England shall be paramount over Acts of Parliament, and not law shall be passed that contradicts the teachings of the Church of England.

So it's not the establishment of a Natl Religion, but rather the Religions place in the grand scheme of Govt?

[nelms]

Yes, I do and I also think this answers Nelms' question. .

No you didn't. You said Iraq has regressed into an Islamofascist government. You still did not answer my question on how you arrived at that conclusion. The fact that you think Iraq isn't a democracy doesn't automatically make them an Islamofacist regime.