November 10, 2005

This is bad

US used white phosphorus on Fallujah.

White phosphorus is commonly understood to be a chemical weapon given its ugly propensity to burn flesh on contact and therefore killing or maiming those affected by it.

This claim--that white phosphorus was used in the siege of Fallujah--is indisputable given that the Army has already bragged about doing so.
White Phosphorous. WP 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 United States uses chemical weapons and torture methods in a war started on premises its leaders very likely knew were false.

6 comments:

  1. Suhail Ahmad.10:13 AM

    Thank you Andrew.

    That's a beautiful summary of the situation.

    It also never ceases to amuse me that 'Operation Shock and Awe' was a great euphemism for 'Terror[ism]'. I mean, this wasn't 'Happy fucking birthday' shock and awe.

    Hope all is well.

    Su.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Suhail Ahmad.11:00 AM

    Oh yes... I almost forgot:

    http://chris-floyd.com/fallujah/

    Watch the video. The footage speaks for itself.

    Su.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous11:42 AM

    Guess what? The military also uses bombs. They kill people! Can you believe their gall! Using "weapons" in wartime! What will the Bush administration think of next?

    And can you believe that Sarkosky fellow in France? Using chemical weapons like tear gas on rioters! It might make their eyes sting!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Guess what! Causing more harm than necessary is fucking immoral! Can you believe the disregard for moral principles?

    And can you believe that the United States is supposed to be a leader in the world? And as such likely should execute military actions above and beyond international standards? Can you believe that taking military action means the government should als take responsibility and not just say "war is hell"?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not the same anonymous5:08 PM

    I know you're not arguing this point exactly, but the US did "execute military actions above and beyond international standards."

    The US successfully overthrew Saddam Hussein in less time and with fewer casualties on either side than the world believed possible. It used precision technology that the rest of the world lacks allowing the virtual (but not total) elimination of collateral damage. It used better soldiers than any others in the world, soldiers who by and large exercised extraordinary restraint.

    Had the Americans wanted to destroy Fallujah and give everyone within a painful, tortured death, they could have easily done so. Instead, they allowed non-combatants to leave and then executed a fast three-day operation that dislodged the terrorists within with a minimum of casualties.

    You're grasping at straws here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Had the Americans wanted to destroy Fallujah and give everyone within a painful, tortured death, they could have easily done so.

    This is irrelevant. Hypothetical actions not undertaken cannot justify actual actions. If I plagiarize a single quote on a paper, I can't get off by saying, "Well, I could have ripped the entire thing off the Net, so my actions are justified." The immorality of my act is not diminished or even altered by the alternatives I didn't take.

    The point is that we removed Saddam Hussein for being a torturer and a user of chemical weapons. What have we done? The same things, albeit less severely.

    This is a failure of moral resolve. Period.

    ReplyDelete