DU is not made from "used nuclear fuel"; it is the unwanted fraction -- essentially pure U238 -- from separation of natural uranium into fissionable (U235) and non-fissionable (U238) fractions.

Great post, Jay. You inspired me to finally crystallize my own thoughts on the torture issue...danke.

By the definitions above, Iraq was under sanctions for a lot of weaponry that was _NOT_ WMD.

The Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missile, the longer range surface to surface missile, and three or four UAV projects were all listed as violations by Blix et al.

You have hit the nail on the head with the query over the definition of severe.

Like all generic laws/guidelines etc, this one tends to look like it's saying somthing right, without actually saying anything at all!

"Some would say that to be safe, one should simply refrain from inflicting any sort of discomfort." which is plainly ridiculous - prison is supposed to be discomforting at the least!

The problem is that every case is individual & to have a sweeping statement saying "severe pain is torture" is pointless. Not that I'm in favour of torture, but I'm not sure how to define it to make it applicable across the board.

you should try living in Europe, wheere there are loads of "european directives" that are even more wooly, describing every aspect of life. Most of them are either ignored or taken to extremes!

For the definitive word on DU, take at look at the 234-page report from Scandia labs, issued this past July. It directly addresses the issue of collateral damage from the use of DU and doesn't find much to support the theories.

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/def-nonprolif-sec/snl-dusand.pdf

Jay, just for future reference you should note that the United States Code doesn't limit the term "weapon of mass destruction" to only N.B.C. devices. Under some circumstances, ordinary chemical explosives can also qualify as WMDs. See U.S.C. Title 18 Section 2332a, "Use of certain weapons of mass destruction." One of the charges against both Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols was "use of a weapon of mass destruction."

There are a large number of technical and practical problems with this post.

The author wrote:
WP is used mainly for generating smoke, to obscure vision. The smoke isn't especially pleasant, but it's hardly a poison gas. Further, it can also be used as a flare, generating light on the battlefield to illuminate the enemy. Yes, it burns rather hot, but it's hardly an incindiary agent. Again, we have far better substances available than WP for use that way.

WP is very clearly an "incindiary agent." From Wikipedia:

White phosphorus is a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus which has found extensive military application as a smoke-screening agent and for target marking. It is also used as an incendiary weapon [1]. It is commonly referred to in military jargon as "WP" or "white phos". The Vietnam War era slang Willie Pete is still occasionally heard.

The notion that we have "far better substances" is a red herring since the Army itself has admitted (warning: pdf file) that it used WP for precisely the effect they're accused of:

WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.

The wiki page referenced also notes that the LD50 -- the dose required to kill 50% of a test group -- is 50mg. To put this in perspective, the multi-vitamin I take has roughly 447mg in one pill. So imagine cutting a standard multi into nine pieces. One of those, were it white phosphorus, will kill one out of every two humans unfortunate enough to ingest this tiny amount.

And we haven't even gotten to the burns yet...

The government website epa.gov (Environmental Protection Agency) notes:
Dermal exposure to white phosphorus in humans may result in severe burns, which are necrotic, yellowish, fluorescent under ultraviolet light, and have a garlic-like odor.

The author concludes:
Finally, the chemical weapons ban specifically excludes combustion as a banned chemical process in weapons. That's all WP does -- it burns up. It doesn't poison, or create an acid, or destroy nerves, or shred lungs -- it just burns up.

White phosphorus cannot legitimately be called anything but a poison. To suggest otherwise belies either willful or unwillful ignorance but it's ignorance no matter how you slice it.

Also, white phosphorus as a weapon is in violation of Protocol III of the U.N. Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW).

The convention has four protocols:

* Protocol I restricts fragmentation weapons
* Protocol II restricts landmines
* Protocol III restricts incendiary weapons
* Protocol IV (adopted in 1995) restricts blinding laser weapons

And so the United States violates Protocol III.

In conclusion, I think the author is seriously, seriously mistaken and demonstrably so. Yes, WMD is evil. It's even evil when we do it.

But I can put this entire argument in a clearer light. If Al-queda released WP into a NYC subway system and Bush referred to it as WMD, can the author seriously claim that he would argue the point?

Regards,
bodhisoma

The essence that describes most of the attitudes affiliated with the (generally, convenient) "anti war" movement centers in a lack of respect and regard for human life. When it's not worth protecting, no amount of defense and effort to defend is "worthy" or explainably accepted.

I realize that's a very large statement there but among most who seize upon the "anti war" mantra as cause and purpose, you will also find a majority of those who consider military effort to defend, protect, serve as unworthy, as "harmful" to a great extent, who have, also, a diminished regard for human life.

And so, I write, as to the "essence" of the anti-war movement, it is almost routinely inclusive of an obstinate insistence that individuals can and need to choose death as an alternative to survival or even the life experience, such as it is. Thus, no amount of information about the reasons for "war" (use of military process to defend, protect, serve) is ever tolerable within such a sad state of moral depression.

Hmmm.

The funny part about White Phosphorus is that the end product is phosphoric acid.

One of the main ingredients of Coke-a-Cola.

Al,

Something Jay didn't mention is that the "WMD" definition sometimes (always?) includes delivery methods for NBC weapons as well. So, long range missiles were counted as "WMD", at least in the case of Iraq, since long range missiles are basically useless militarily unless they have nuclear warheads.

I'm not sure about the "Silkworm"s but it's quite possible they can be fitted with nuclear warheads too. The Soviets put nukes on just about everything - SAMs, torpedos, depth charges, cruise missiles. Then again so did the US I guess, although i'm not so sure about the torpedos or cruise missiles (ASROC is the closest thing I can think of).

I don't think "WMD" always includes missiles to deliver them in the definition, more likely when it's used pertaining to situations like Iraq where both were being disallowed for the same reason.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Jay, with all due respect. Are you arguing that the U.S. used near-WMDs but not quite WMDs, and near-torture but not quite torture, and so a clear moral distinction can be made? That's like saying I pimp-slapped you but I didn't punch you so don't call it assault. If -- and for me this remains a humongous IF -- the U.S. transferred white phosphorus from incendiary use to some more nefarious use in Fallujah, it's not just wrong, it's unAmerican. This country is supposed to stand for something better than "near torture" or kinda sorta using chemical weapons.

Just how far is the right willing to downgrade what America stands for simply for the sake of protecting George W. Bush? Or perhaps more importantly, for the sake of justifying the deaths of American troops?

You won't find a more pro-military Democrat than me, Jay, and I take every account of American abuses with a HUGE grain of salt (and most often come down on the side of blaming the leadership and not the guys in the ditches). However, some of the allegations about what our forces have done AS A MATTER OF POLICY, are damning and represent a blot on the United States' record for decency in wartime. In that sense, the neocons and Mr. Bush have sullied this country's good name, and no amount of definitional rationalization can change that.

I agree that the Code Pinks and ANSWERS of the world are embarassing and often make asses of themselves, and at this point, I think the same probably goes for Ms. Sheehan, who has clearly lost it in her grief, but they're not really the issue, are they, since they have no power to affect U.S. policy. The ones who do are in the White House, State Department and Pentagon. If you're too much of a Republican to admit that these guys have led the United States down the wrong path -- on the issue of torture (which shouldn't even be used in the same sentence as "the United States", on war planning, and on the justification for the invasion itself (there clearly was no threat to the U.S., and the Constitution only gives the president the power to secure the freedom of Americans, not Iraqis...) then I just don't know what else to say.

Decency/wartime/winners -- three words that how often appear (when used honestly) in the history books?

Relative decency, we win out hands down, so what's your point JReid? Pure angelic decency in war, well even the French can't claim that.

I thought a heard a report on the radio today and I believe it was from the The Jerusalem Post that Shi'ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr has been heard stating his belief the White House staged the bombings in Jordan and that he would be providing documentation from Israeli witnesses of a desparate and diabolical plan that helped to smuggle operatives from Israel to Jordan.
Further, Muqtada al-Sadr believes this was an attempt by the Bush administration to divert attention from the legal issues mounting upon Vice President Cheney's office, while also boosting support for Bush's anti-terrorism plan.

Have you heard or seen anything like this? Could this be possible?

JReid, what I'm saying is that the terms are black and white. They are or they are not. You're trying to argue that there is also gray, and gray is just as bad as black.

I almost murdered someone the other day, but I decided to keep my car on the street and off the sidewalk. I almost raped someone, but instead I just admired an attractive lady. I briefly considered stealing a soda, but instead forked over the buck for it.

But by your reasoning, I'm a thief, a rapist, and a murderer.

J.

I think what Jay is "getting at here", is that a chemical weapon is a chemical weapon and a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon.

Whether or not you happen to like a particular weapon (personally, anything used to maim or kill seems pretty horrible to me) you can't really argue with the way that the world has decided to classify them. Most nations agreed to ban chemical weapons back about, what, 30 years ago. At the same time, they also wrote down the definition of chemical weapons, so it would be very clear what was being agreed upon.

Similarly, we're pretty clear on what's biological, what's nuclear, what's incendiary, what a mine is, and also on which of these we have agreed not to use for one reason or another (and when they're not allowed).

You can't just go and twist those definitions or agreements to suit your agenda. That's dishonest. If you have an objection, then make an honest objection. After all, if there's any merit in it, it should be able to stand on its own, right?

I have a great deal of contempt for people who use false accusations and distortions to make others outraged and agree with them (it's a form of brain-washing). I have no problem with people who make an argument for something they believe in. Try to be accurate and honest, and explain your feelings, and even people who disagree with you (who aren't complete retards) will be forced to at least concede that you state your beliefs in a mature and constructive manner. To do otherwise is counter-productive.

Oh, and by the way bodhisoma, you're completely wrong, sorry.

I've read the relevant conventions. You obviously haven't, to state what you have stated. A few little facts for you:

White Phosphorous is primarily, a smoke generating munition, secondarily, an incendiary and it has some toxic effects. In that order. You COULD argue, it's an incendiary first, smoke second (not very successfully, in my opinion, but it IS arguable).

Incendiaries are NOT BANNED by that convention. Read it! The restriction is that they're not used on civilians, or in situations that would result in large numbers of civilian casualties. If you know anything about history, you'll understand why. And since we have NO (repeat: no) evidence of civilian casualties from incendiaries, I'd say you'd have a pretty hard time arguing this has been violated. (Yes; I've seen those bodies that were claimed to be civilians killed by US incendiary weapons. For people who were burned, their skin is amazingly unbroken and unblemished. Also, most of them seem to be missing important bits of their anatomy, which might just explain why they're dead.)

On top of this, the US signed parts I and II of that treaty, but not part III. Only signatories are bound to follow it. But regardless, the US has not violated the terms of the treaty, regardless of whether it has been ratified, if incendiaries have been used on enemy combatants in a reasonable manner.

On top of THAT, the treaty SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES incendiaries which are used PRIMARILY (see above) for smoke/light/etc.

As many of us have pointed out, most weapons are toxic. Lead is poisonous. But you don't shoot someone with a lead bullet so they'll die of the toxicity. And yes, people HAVE died from lead poisoning after being shot before.

If you read the definition of what a chemical weapon is (try the CWC), it not only specifically excludes incendiaries, but WP doesn't count anyway, since its toxicity is not the primary method of its efficacy.

So please try to use your eyes and brain before you post again, OK?

But where do you draw the line? That's the tough part
It seems the administration has drawn the line on what you can do to Americans and what you can do non-Americans outside our borders. As the author of the linked article suggests, this doesn't really make sense..If torture is wrong and we simply don't permit it in the USA.."Americans don't torture"..The extreme circumstances that Jay Tea says permit torture on non-Americans abroad ,should be allowed then on American soil, and on Americans abroad if the necessity is strong enough, according to this logic. A gray area with subjective limits, soon becomes a very slippery slope.

On the other hand, if we reclassify WP as a WMD, Iraq did have massive stockpiles of WP. As will almost anybody else we might want to invade in the future.^^

By my commenter moniker it should be obvious I am an “old soldier” – over 31 years in the U.S. Army, serving in Vietnam, Central America and the first Gulf War to name just the battle zones. I’m not an anti-war activist neither am I a war hawk; I’m just a soldier who did his duty for a few years. My political ideology is conservative and…

I’m here to tell you, you should all be ashamed of yourselves. We are WASTING young American’s lives in this war on terror. In our unreasonable endeavor to fight a moral war; to execute moral battles, we are directly causing the needless deaths of our young heroes. We have this national stigma that says we must not use dirty tactics; that we must employ righteous maneuvers; that we may not strike until stricken. Those unrealistic expectations self-righteously imposed upon our warfighters costs us needless losses of young soldiers’ lives.

Because we fight a Muslim enemy we must be mindful and respectful of their religiosity. We must not defile their mosques, or the Qur’an, or their dead bodies, etc., etc. For crying out loud, al Qaeda doesn’t have as much respect for those things as we do. They certainly hold only contempt for our religious beliefs. In essence we have told our soldiers, leave your rifle, side arm and bayonet in base camp, take a net and go capture the enemy; or tie your right wrist adjacent to your left ankle before engaging in a fire fight.

Limited engagements are for the plays, not warfare. The objective of war is to win the unconditional surrender of your enemy. Is that our objective in this war? Containment is not an option. Conversion to Islam (at least for me) is not an option. Dhimmitude (again, at least for me) is not an option. Dying may be an option if necessary. Look, war is a total failure of diplomacy and humanity. Diplomacy was never an option where radical Islam is concerned. War is the only option left to control and defeat radical Islam. A strategic part of defeating radical Islam includes free democratic nations established in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our young soldiers and their military leaders understand the mission and they understand the ultimate importance of their success. We on the other hand don’t want them to do what they are trained to do. If we were serious about defeating the terrorists in Iraq, we would have triple the boots on the ground; seal the borders with Syria and Iran and start a door to door search for the bad guys. We would deny them the ability to mount offensives because we would have enough troops to take them out before they could organize. I’m strategizing tactics now and that wasn’t my intent.

My point is; if you want to limit needless losses of our soldiers’ lives, turn them loose and let them operate freely. They are the most morale force under uniform in the world today; they will do everything in their power to limit collateral damage. But, when they have to get dirty to take out a dirty enemy, don’t hamstring them and for God’s sake don’t condemn them for immoral tactics. When you liberal hecklers have walked in their boots, then and only then will you have some room to criticize; otherwise you should silence your keyboards about whether the battle that just cost them several of their buddies was fought fair or not.

Was white phosphorus used in Fallujah? Probably.

Was white phosphorus used as a weapon in Fallujah? Probably not.

As stated above white phosphorus is used as a smoke agent and for illumination.

Now is it possible for small pieces of white phosphorus from a parachute flare to break off? Sure.

I used to work on photo recon jets and we used white phosphorus for photoflash cartridges. I've seen military solid rocket propellent break off at launch and start fires. And, its also possible that a broken piece of white phosphorus might fall on a civilian below.

But the crux is that white phosphorus is not used as a weapon and is not directed against civilians.

Those Americans joining the terrorists propaganda war are doing a disservice to their country. Yes, you have freedom of speech, as well as, freedom to make an ass of yourself.

BTW - for the Kossacks et al - Last week, I had the opportunity to pass by the Pine Bluff Arsenal, which is our country's depot for white phosphorus. The arsenal exit is a nondescript exit in the woods along a low volume freeway. There isn't a really good place to stand and protest. Standing water. Soggy shoulders. Lots of bugs. No gas station, no c-store, no restrooms. Bring a porta potty or make other arrangements, if you come.

Also, any protestors need to be ready to evacuate with little notice as the arsenal is currently burning VX nerve agent. Any protestors are likely to be stampeeded by workers in the event of any accidental release.

DC is a better protest site - good hotels, great food, restrooms, national media, lots of citizens

Hi Nicholas,

First, try to tone down the insults. Continue with them and I won't bother responding. It's called an "ad hominem" attack and it makes your argument weaker, not stronger.

Nicholas wrote:
White Phosphorous is primarily, a smoke generating munition, secondarily, an incendiary and it has some toxic effects. In that order. You COULD argue, it's an incendiary first, smoke second (not very successfully, in my opinion, but it IS arguable).

This is not my argument nor have I stated it is my argument. This is known as a "strawman attack," which is to say setting up an argument your opponent did not make so as to refute it.

Nicholas wrote:
Incendiaries are NOT BANNED by that convention. Read it! The restriction is that they're not used on civilians, or in situations that would result in large numbers of civilian casualties. If you know anything about history, you'll understand why. And since we have NO (repeat: no) evidence of civilian casualties from incendiaries, I'd say you'd have a pretty hard time arguing this has been violated.

We will probably agree most strongly on this point with one exception; you claim there is no evidence. This is incorrect. We have evidence which even I will agree is not fact. Given that this is being reported world-wide (far more outside of the U.S.) I would suggest a fair investigation.

Don't mistake me for an ABB (Anyone But Bush) liberal fanatic. While I do despise (yes, despise) Bush and I am about as leftist as you will find, I believe that truth is the goal here, not browbeating the current administration.

Unfortunately, credibility is the better part knowing how to proceed here. I believe Bush himself this week said that we were wrong in the WMD claim. Some call it willful deception, some say it was a matter of faulty intel.

None of these facts are currently disputed by anyone and for the sake of argument I will not refer to them as "lies."

We were told of "500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX." Incorrect.

We were told of "30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents." Incorrect.

We were told of UAVs. Incorrect.

We were told Saddam had a strike capability ETA of 40 minutes. Incorrect.

We were told of a link between Iraq and Al-queda. Incorrect.

We were told about Saddam's attempt to obtain yellowcake from Niger. Incorrect.

We were told about mobile weapons labs. Incorrect.

We were told about aluminum tubes used for processing fissile material. Incorrect.

We were told that Iraq was rebuilding destroyed nuclear facilities. Incorrect.

We were even told that Saddam kicked out the U.N. inspectors. Incorrect.

I don't want this argument to drift away from the WP issue, but when the Army says that WP was not used against civilians in Fallujah, am I ready to believe them out-of-hand despise some evidence to the contrary, am I prepared to roll over?

Not a chance.

Heck, I challenge you to show me what correct facts we were told about Iraq. Was Saddam a vicious murderer? Yes. Would that be worth invading? That isn't up for me to decide, that is up to the president who has an obligation to fulfill the will of the people.

Would the citizens of the United States have supported invading Iraq if we knew then what we know now? We both know the answer to that question.

There exists a growing number of leaders -- including some Republicans, too -- that agree this war is hurting our effort vs. terrorism. Pardon my caps but THIS IS KEY. Terrorism is certainly a bona fide threat, let's be clear on that. I still get sick to my stomach when I watch people leaping from the towers.

You may not be aware that my employer took a nose dive when (a) the dot-com burst and (b) the CTO of my company died on Flight 11. While I didn't know him as a friend, I did spend a bit of time with Danny Lewin (we even went shooting at the same range, yeah, I'm a leftist and I shoot) and I can tell you he was one of the brightest and most charismatic people who I've ever met. You might recall a story of how one passenger was knifed to death prior to the plane hitting the tower and that was Danny.

Ex-Mossad, winner of many mathematics awards and big part of IBM's Haifa offices. At Danny's eulogy his father went off on a full-on rant vs. arabs. Was it an understandable reaction? Definitely. I sure as hell wasn't about to argue with the man.

But we CANNOT lose sight of what we are in the process of fighting terrorism. Nietzche comes to mind, something about looking into the abyss.

So what we need to do is insure that we are not seen as worse than Saddam. Are you aware that 200,000 Iraqis have been killed since we arrived? Saddam killed about 12,000/yr. I think his total is estimated to be 240,000. Part of that responsibility is to police ourselves so when evidence is presented that we have WP'd civilians to death then I strongly recommend we fairly investigate the claim.

And that's my whole point.

I think the key difference between "conservatives" and "liberals" is that liberals tend to see things as interlocked. They see a cause and effect and I'll even agree that liberals tend to see too much cause and effect and lose sight of the big picture. Conservatives tend to think that there is no cause and effect. Do you suppose that we are hated worldwide for no reason?

The way to fight terror is to make an attempt to figure out why. If there is one thing you should take from this post it's this: If we don't I guarantee we'll lose.

Nicholas wrote:
(Yes; I've seen those bodies that were claimed to be civilians killed by US incendiary weapons. For people who were burned, their skin is amazingly unbroken and unblemished. Also, most of them seem to be missing important bits of their anatomy, which might just explain why they're dead.)

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same pictures but the ones I've seen are of people with intact clothes with badly burned bodies underneath. This is consistent with WP.

Nicholas wrote:
On top of this, the US signed parts I and II of that treaty, but not part III. Only signatories are bound to follow it.

This, I think, is the worst and most despicable argument you offer. Al-queda has not signed it either. Does this, in your mind, make them exempt?

Speaking of which, I notice that you did not pick up on my very straight-forward question; "If Al-queda released WP into a NYC subway system and Bush referred to it as WMD, can the [you] honestly claim" that you'd argue with Bush?

In fact it's the only part of my post that you did not address. Please answer this question directly.

Nicholas wrote:
On top of THAT, the treaty SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES incendiaries which are used PRIMARILY (see above) for smoke/light/etc.

We agree that WP is not banned by anyone for use as an illumination munition. If you believe that Protocol III does not ban use of an incindiary directly on civilians, please let me know the basis of this assertion.

Nicholas wrote:
As many of us have pointed out, most weapons are toxic. Lead is poisonous. But you don't shoot someone with a lead bullet so they'll die of the toxicity. And yes, people HAVE died from lead poisoning after being shot before.

This argument is a non sequiter.

I look forward to your reply. If it contains personal attacks, again, I will not bother to reply.

Regards,
bodhisoma

Bodhisoma,

Let me address some of your points.

First, doctrinally, the U.S. Army Field Artillery employment of WP is:
1) as an obscurant (smoke) to screen the movement of troops and equipment – delivery is most contact detonated (when the shell hit the ground).
2) as an incendiary against enemy fuel and ammo dumps- delivery most likely is air burst to saturate the area with burning bits of WP
3) as an incendiary against enemy equipment (like trucks, trailers, tentage – light unarmored stuff) – delivery most likely the air burst for the same reason as #2.

Mortar delivered WP would be contact detonated and the usual employment is as an obscurant (smoke). However, from what I’ve read at the battle of Fallujah in Nov 04 mortars fired WP mixed with HE. It was a psych tactic to force the enemy our whereby the HE did it’s killing work. A nice piece of thinking in my book.

WP is employed as an incendiary by artillery fire against fuel, ammo and equipment – NOT PERSONNEL. Mortar fired WP is only good for smoke as there isn’t enough WP to be effective as an incendiary – however, if no artillery were available, mortar fired WP would probably be employed in that roll as well.

As for the US use of incendiary that would violate the Geneva Accords are more like Napalm or flame throwers. Tanks with flame throwers are an extremely effective weapon against an enemy that is holed up; as in a building. Our main battle tanks are well armored against small arms and withstand most RPG hits, so M1 tanks with flame throwers in Fallujah would have been most effective (not to mention the fire breathing dragon psych value).

Good Lord man, we haven’t found any caches of WMDs, so yes we were wrong. But to deny the intelligence that was supplied by Israel, Great Britain, Egypt, Russia and a couple other countries that all indicated that Saddam either had WMD or was perfecting technology is to suddenly (and conveniently?) forget. To claim the Bush lied you must include all the congressmen (both Democrat and GOP) past presidents and past cabinet members also lied. They had the very same intelligence by which to make their statements.

The al Qaeda-Iraq link was made in the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report that was made subsequent to the invasion. That same report also substantiated the yellow cake claim. And mobile French-made military chemical labs were captured on the initial thrust in 2003.

“…the Army says that WP was not used against civilians in Fallujah, am I ready to believe them out-of-hand despise some evidence to the contrary, am I prepared to roll over? Not a chance.”
First of all, the Army didn’t claim they didn’t use WP, they said they didn’t use chemical weapons. They admitted to using mortar fired WP mixed with HE. The disturbing part of your comment is in your unwillingness to believe our military. So, basically your first position is to condemn our military until it is proven they didn’t do what they are accused. Please do not come back with Abu Grahb – that investigation was already months old within the Army before the Army made it publicly known, and it involved a few bad apples. It certainly doesn’t compare to employing Rican against civilians.

How many of your 200,000 Iraqis dead figure is attributable to US combat actions and how many to the terrorists bombings? There is a big difference and to insinuate otherwise is being dishonest with the facts.

“I'm not sure if we're talking about the same pictures but the ones I've seen are of people with intact clothes with badly burned bodies underneath. This is consistent with WP.”
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG (to quote Sen. Robert Byrd.) I guarantee if burning WP hit clothing it would burn the clothing. It burns at about 5,000oF, how could it not burn the clothing yet burn skin beneath it? Besides, it burns locally where it hits, not globally over all the body. The WP smoke cloud is no more poisonous than the billowing smoke from a pile of moist fall leaves. If you stood directly in it could cause a nasty cough, but not fry the skin over the entire body. It could produce a choking feeling because the smoke would contain little exchangeable oxygen.
Al Qaeda is extremely unlikely to use a weapon that is patently useless at causing mass casualties such as WP. It would be a totally useless expenditure of their network and resources to employ a pure WP weapon.
“The way to fight terror is to make an attempt to figure out why. If there is one thing you should take from this post it's this: If we don't I guarantee we'll lose.”
I you and your wife were walking down a street and a man stepped out with a gun and said he was going to kill you and then your wife, would you try to understand why he wanted to do that? That approach will only ensure your children are left parentless. However, if you carried two shiny revolvers on you hips and were known to be the fastest draw in the world and had the resolve to shoot him in the blink of an eye, he’d probably give you a wide berth and you wouldn’t have to show your skills. It’s called peace through strength with a resolve to use it. My friend, we know the reason radical Islamic terrorists are targeting our citizens and our way of life. Our freedom threatens their ability to rule Muslims with a theocracy called sharia law. We did not win WWII by “understanding” why Hitler wanted to rule all of Europe and Hirohito wanted to rule all the Far East. We won by exercising a greater resolve and utilizing superior firepower.

You would do well to reflect upon what works and what doesn’t. We’re in a fight for our very way of life, our very freedoms and liberties and understanding why the radical Islamic terrorists want to kill us doesn’t stop it.

Hmm. Very odd statements above.

"I'm not sure if we're talking about the same pictures but the ones I've seen are of people with intact clothes with badly burned bodies underneath. This is consistent with WP."

Says who? Everything I've read suggests that WP will burn just about anything, including STEEL. If it will burn steel I'm pretty sure it will burn clothes. Please give me a source for your claim?

I have seen pictures claimed to be of civilians burnt to death from Fallujah but they didn't look at all burnt to me. I don't know for sure if they're the same pictures. So far nobody has shown me pictures of bodies which look burnt.

"This, I think, is the worst and most despicable argument you offer. Al-queda has not signed it either. Does this, in your mind, make them exempt?"

Sure. There's nothing stopping Al-Quada using incendiaries on enemy combatants, and it would be no more immoral than anyone else using it on enemy combatants. But does Al-Quada attack enemy combatants? Hardly. They typically target civilians, something the US does not do, which makes them despicable. The US may accidentally kill some civilians occasionally but they do not target them on purpose.

On top of that, which nation-state do they represent? Where are their uniforms? Equating Al-Quada to the military of a legitimate nation-state doesn't make sense. Even under the Taliban they didn't operate as a military force.

"Speaking of which, I notice that you did not pick up on my very straight-forward question; "If Al-queda released WP into a NYC subway system and Bush referred to it as WMD, can the [you] honestly claim" that you'd argue with Bush?"

WP is not a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Anyone claiming that is an idiot. I don't care who it is, including Bush.

"We agree that WP is not banned by anyone for use as an illumination munition. If you believe that Protocol III does not ban use of an incindiary directly on civilians, please let me know the basis of this assertion."

I never claimed it does not ban the use on civilians. I just claimed that the US would not intentionally use it on civilians and would try hard to avoid accidentally hitting them. This is the point of the incendiary portion of the CCCW.

I'm sorry but I don't call wild accusations "Evidence". If you want to claim some people have been burned to death, and that's evidence, get someone qualified to make that statement, like a coroner, who knows how to look at a body.

Here's the so-called evidence:

* Video supposedly of a "helicopter dropping WP". Only problem with the video is there's no helicopter in it. It's an aerial mortar burst, used to produce smoke, not set things on fire.

* Bodies supposedly burned with some kind of incendiary. Only their clothes are intact, and I see no signs of burning. Where is the expert who has stated these bodies are of people burned by WP?

* Statements that WP were used. The military admits it. Problem is, all the statements claim to be using it to generate smoke (or, if you count illumination flares containing WP, light).

I suppose you could bring these pieces of "evidence" to some kind of court case, but I think expert witnesses would make one regret it.

*sigh* I give up. I'll let someone else say the same things over and over and over again.

Honestly, why does it matter who uses what weapon on whom?

What we want to avoid is hurting or killing people who don't deserve it. Innocent bystanders, civilians, etc. - none of them deserve to be hit by any weapon. Any weapon which hits the right people and not the wrong people is a good weapon in my book.

I would love to see all conflicts solved without any violence. Unfortunately, that requires both parties to be reasonable. Al Quada is not reasonable - you can not negotiate with them. Saddam and his government were not reasonable. Violence happened, people die.

We should aim for as few people to die and be injured as possible. If WP will help achieve that aim - great! Hell, if chemical weapons would help, I would be fine with that too. The reason we didn't want Saddam to have WMDs is because we're pretty sure he would use them indiscriminately. The US, UK, etc. DO have WMDs and do not use them indiscriminately. I have no real problem with this.

So why get so outraged about what weapons are being used? If you want to be upset about civilians dying unnecessarily, well, you have the right to be upset and you have the right to demand the combatants do everything in their power to avoid it.

The US has shown that they're willing to put their own soldiers in harm's way when they could just destroy their enemies and to hell with the collateral damage. I think that's very honorable. (See what Old Soldier says above). Does Al Quada do that? No, they do the opposite. What about the Syria- or Iran-backed fighters? Not really. Most of the parties to this conflict couldn't care less about dead civilians, except the US/UK/allies.

If you want as few people to die as possible, you'll help support those who are trying to minimise civilian casualties and end violence. If you see something you think is a violation of their principles, get CREDIBLE EVIDENCE and complain about it until they investigate. That's fine. But I'm sorry, in this case, there is no credible evidence of such things happening. WP is a diversion from what should be the real issue.

I hope that this rings true with some people.

Oops, this didn't come out sounding right:

"Honestly, why does it matter who uses what weapon on whom?"

Emphasis was supposed to be on the "what weapon", not on the "on whom" part.

I think the r