0
highfly

Americas illegal use of chemical weapons

Recommended Posts

50 caliber is 50 caliber whether you are shooting it out of the semi-automatic Barrett or out of the Browning M2 machine gun such as Carlos Hathcock did during Vietnam when he attached a scope to it and used it in single shot to engage the enemy, or hammering it down range at full auto.
I just spent 30 minutes reading through the different parts of the Geneva Convention regarding the
Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Geneva, 10 October 1980. Amendment article 1, 21 December 2001 and a few other conventions before requesting you provide evidence or reference to counter the evidence such as I posted. If it is in a new article in the Geneva convention, and signed and ratified by the United States, why have we not updated the Laws of Land Warfare Field Manual 27-10 to coincide? I posted the most up to date link to the Reimer Digital Library where the manual can be examined. I attended the Army Sniper Course at FT Benning in 1999. We used the Remington M24 (.308) and Barrett M95 (.50) bolt action as well as the Barrett M82A1 (.50) semi-automatic rifles. Again, please a reference specifically stating it is illegal to use either the 50 caliber round or a 50 caliber machine gun against personnel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm


US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i did some searching and it seems that the .50 being barred from use against personnel is a well-circulated myth. apparently, the geneva convention usually prohibits types of weapons and modification of approved weapons instead of specific weapons themselves. the most credible source i found was part of a powerpoint presentation from the usmc (a .mil url).

i was told the myth by fellow nco's back when i was in from '95 to '00. just goes to show, don't believe everything you hear, right?
"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're not worried...we didn't use chemical nor did we violate the Geneva convention.

from that first link..."The substance can cause burning of the flesh but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical weapon."

it's not illegal and it's not classified as a chemical weapon, so the title of this thread is not accurate at all.

As was pointed out, WP is banned in Protocol III of the Geneva Convention. It prohibits some things from use against civilians. We did not use it against civilians, it was used against enemy combatants. So even if we did sign Protocol III, we didn't violate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't seen anything that claims that. I haven't read all the links yet, is there a specific one that states that?

Is it possible that there were unintended civilian targets in the area, of course. But it's not like these soldiers decided to shoot this stuff into a place they knew was filled with civilians. Wwe do our best to minimize collateral damage to civilians, but you can't eliminate it when your enemy has a history of hiding out mosques and residential neighborhoods. You do everything you can, but the press makes you out be as bad as Saddam when it happens.

If these guys did use WP in a residential area without making sure the civilians were gone, then they should be punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


it's not illegal and it's not classified as a chemical weapon, so the title of this thread is not accurate at all.



I reckon it is accurate as I learned about Phosphorus in my Chemistry lesson and not Human biology or geography.


www.myspace.com/durtymac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I reckon that the side effects of Phosphorus in your body Naturally is a lot worse than the side effects of the hand grenade version.

And to add I dont see anything on there that states you should ingest or take by eplosive methods.


Possible Side Effects

Phosphorus supplements can cause diarrhea, although this is often a signal that there is no deficiency to start with. Other gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, vomiting, and stomach pain may also occur.


www.myspace.com/durtymac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a mineral supplement delivery system, not a weapon. They weren't trying burn anything or blow anything up they were trying to help the people of Iraq build strong bones and teeth. It wasn't the US military it was the Salvation Army that did it. I'm sure we'll find that this device was funded by a grant from the Health and Human Services department. Damn good samaritans!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is a mineral supplement delivery system, not a weapon. They weren't trying burn anything or blow anything up they were trying to help the people of Iraq build strong bones and teeth. It wasn't the US military it was the Salvation Army that did it. I'm sure we'll find that this device was funded by a grant from the Health and Human Services department. Damn good samaritans!



LMFAO.

As Sudsy said.. We can all see the funnier side of things.

:D:D


www.myspace.com/durtymac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I see it, the issue at hand is not whether it is legal or illegal to use WP, but whether using a weapon such is this is right or wrong from a human standpoint.

Face it...dying by fire is one of the worst and most painful ways to go. Using a weapon which causes extreme pain and suffering before death ensues, puts you on dodgy moral ground.

Sure it is effective, whole gangs of scientists have no doubt burned the midnite oil designing the best delivery systems and the pentagon probably has loads of information about tests, potential side effects, strategic uses ect, ect ad nauseum.

But the question remains, is it right to kill anyone in that way?

This is not in defense of the terrorists, their use of bombs against civilians is morally reprehensible, but so is the use of a weapon which causes extreme pain and suffering before death results.

I personally would never like to die from burning to death from a fire which cannot be extinguised, napalm, WP or whatever.

Dont tell me that terrorists are not already using footage and photos of the victims of WP to further brainwash and indoctrinate the fools they have managed to recruit....see the evil of the West.

I can empathise with the Allied commander though, whose objective is to win the battle with as little loss of life on his own side as possible, but when the means to victory bring you to the level of a torturer from the Spanish inquisition, then it becomes time to examine what it is we are fighting to preserve.

Our Humanity?......we may be losing it faster than we think.
:|
*Disclaimer*
The views expressed in the above post may or may not be the result of drunkeness or temporary insanity and should only rarely be construed as the views of the poster himself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0