|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rhoddri
Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Indeed, people maybe just "arguing sematics". Why not check out International Law and make up your own minds. More specifically: 'Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980. (Article 1)'
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
| Phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon. Its classified like naplam. Gunpowder is a chemical compound but its not a chemical weapon. |
Good ol' napalm eh? Cool ... a kinder gentler, more civilized way to kill.
And remember: it's only "TERROR" if the bad guys do it !!!
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/4230954.html
Vet: "Bodies Melted Away Before Us."
TV to Broadcast Evidence of US Use of Chem Weapons on Civilians
"Bodies melted away before us."
"Bodies melted away before us."
"Bodies melted away before us."
Shocking revelation RAI News 24. Use of chemical weapons by the US military in Iraq. Veteran admits: Bodies melted away before us.
Italian Satellite TV to Broadcast Evidence of US Use of Chemical Weapons on Civilians
by paper tigress
Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:08:19 AM PDT
Incendiary Chem Weapons Being Used in Iraq
By Wayne Madsen
11-8-5
U.S. used white phosphorous chemical weapons in Iraq. The editor has seen gruesome evidence gathered by the Italian RAI TV network documenting America's use of deadly and horrific white phosphorous weapons, including grenades, mortars, and artillery shells, on civilians in Iraq. Weaponized white phosphorous (WP), also called "Willy Peter," literally melts skin upon contact.
However, the WP munitions used in Iraq have apparently been modified so that most of a targets' clothing is not burned but skin and bones are horribly melted. The results are fully clothed macabre corpses -- the intention of which is to frighten civilians and insurgents alike as an extreme form of psychological warfare operations (psyops).
The editor also saw evidence that women and children were victims of WP weapons. Age and gender could be readily determined based on the clothing worn by the victims. White phosphorous was one of the chemical weapons the Bush administration claimed was in the possession of Saddam Hussein's military. The RAI story is to air tomorrow.
http://waynemadsenreport.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/9/174518/797
| Quote: |
First, I think it should be a stated goal of United States policy to not melt the skin off of children.
As a natural corollary to this goal, I think the United States should avoid dropping munitions on civilian neighborhoods which, as a side effect, melt the skin off of children. You can call them "chemical weapons" if you must, or far more preferably by the more proper name of "incendiaries". The munitions may or may not precisely melt the skin off of children by setting them on fire; they do melt the skin off of children, however, through robust oxidation of said skin on said children, which is indeed colloquially known as "burning". But let's try to avoid, for now, the debate over the scientific phenomenon of exactly how the skin is melted, burned, or caramelized off of the aforementioned children. I feel quite confident that others have put more thought into the matter of how to melt the skin off of children than I have, and will trust their judgment on the matter.
Now, I know that we may be melting the skin off of children in order to give them freedom, or to prevent Saddam Hussein from possibly melting the skins off of those children at some future date. These are good and noble things to bring children, especially the ones who have not been killed by melting their skin.
I know, as well, that we do not drop "chemical weapons" on Iraq. We may, in the course of fighting insurgents in civilian neighborhoods, drop "incendiaries" or other airborne weaponry which may melt the skins off of children as an accidental side effect of illuminating their neighborhoods or melting the skins off their neighbors. In that this still can be classified as melting the skins off of children, I feel comfortable in stating that the United States should not condone the practice. (This may mean, when fighting in civilian neighborhoods, we take nuanced steps to avoid melting the skin off of children, such as not dropping munitions that melt the skin off of children.)
And I know it is true, there is some confusion over whether the United States was a signatory to the Do Not Melt The Skin Off Of Children part of the Geneva conventions, and whether or not that means we are permitted to melt the skin off of children, or merely are silent on the whole issue of melting the skin off of children.
But all that aside, there are very good reasons, even in a time of war, not to melt the skin off of children.
* First, because the insurgency will inevitably be hardened by tales of American forces melting the skin off of children.
* Second, because the civilian population will harbor considerable resentment towards Americans for melting the skin off of their children.
* Third, BECAUSE IT FUCKING MELTS THE SKIN OFF OF CHILDREN. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Liberals are unpleaseant to have around, except for when you need party favors, because they often substitute emotion for logic and fact.
| Quote: |
Chemical Warfare Agents
An overview of chemicals defined as chemical weapons
Main Groups
Nerve Agents
Mustard Agents
Hydrogen Cyanide
Arsines
Psychotomimetic Agents
Toxins
Potential CW Agents
What is a Chemical Warfare Agent?
A United Nations report from 1969 defines chemical warfare agents as " ... chemical substances, whether gaseous, liquid or solid, which might be employed because of their direct toxic effects on man, animals and plants ... ".
The Chemical Weapons Convention defines chemical weapons as including not only toxic chemicals but also ammunition and equipment for their dispersal. Toxic chemicals are stated to be " ... any chemical which, through its chemical effect on living processes, may cause death, temporary loss of performance, or permanent injury to people and animals". Plants are not mentioned in this context.
Toxins, i.e., poisons produced by living organisms and their synthetic equivalents, are classed as chemical warfare agents if they are used for military purposes. However, they have a special position since they are covered by the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention of 1972. This convention bans the development, production and stockpiling of such substances not required for peaceful purposes.
Today, thousands of poisonous substances are known but only a few are considered suitable for chemical warfare. About 70 different chemicals have been used or stockpiled as CW agents during the 20th century. Today, only a few of these are considered of interest owing to a number of demands that must be placed on a substance if it is to be of use as a CW agent.
A presumptive agent must not only be highly toxic but also "suitably highly toxic" so that it is not too difficult to handle.
The substance must be capable of being stored for long periods in containers without degradation and without corroding the packaging material.
It must be relatively resistant to atmospheric water and oxygen so that it does not lose effect when dispersed.
It must also withstand the heat developed when dispersed.
"War Gases" are Seldom Gases
CW agents are frequently called war gases and a war where CW agents are used is usually called a gas war. These incorrect terms are a result of history. During the First World War use was made of chlorine and phosgene which are gases at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure. The CW agents used today are only exceptionally gases. Normally they are liquids or solids. However, a certain amount of the substance is always in volatile form (the amount depending on how rapidly the substance evaporates) and the gas concentration may become poisonous. Both solid substances and liquids can also be dispersed in the air in atomized form, so-called aerosols. An aerosol can penetrate the body through the respiratory organs in the same way as a gas.
Some CW agents can also penetrate the skin. This mainly concerns liquids but in some cases also gases and aerosols. Solid substances penetrate the skin slowly unless they happen to be mixed with a suitable solvent.
Effects on Vegetation
Flowers and leaves of some plants may change colour if they are exposed to droplets of a CW agent in an attack. Light or matt spots may occur as well as brown discoloration, particularly on leaves. Entire trees, or parts of them, may also get brown discoloration in situations of strong exposure. The discoloration often arises within a few minutes but may also occur after some days.
Classification
CW agents can be classified in many different ways. There are, for example, volatile substances, which mainly contaminate the air, or persistent substances, which are involatile and therefore mainly cover surfaces.
CW agents mainly used against people may also be divided into lethal and incapacitating cathegories. A substance is classified as incapacitating if less than 1/100 of the lethal dose causes incapacitation, e.g., through nausea or visual problems. The limit between lethal and incapacitating substances is not absolute but refers to a statistical average. In comparison, it may be mentioned that the ratio for the nerve agents between the incapacitating and lethal dose is approximately 1/10. Chemical warfare agents are generally also classified according to their effect on the organism.
In order to achieve good ground coverage when dispersed from a high altitude with persistent CW agents the dispersed droplets must be sufficiently large to ensure that they fall within the target area and do not get transported elsewhere by the wind. This can be achieved by dissolving polymers (e.g., polystyrene or rubber products) in the CW agent to make the product highly-viscous or thickened. The result will be that the persistence time and adhesive ability increase which thus complicates decontamination.
Although it may appear that a CW agent can be "custom-made" for a certain purpose, this is not the case. Instead, there is always some uncertainty about the persistence time, the dispersal and the effect.
These Military Chemicals are Not Considered to be Chemical Weapons
Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy. Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use. Plants, microorganisms, algae, etc. which produce toxins are not classed as chemical weapons even if the produced toxins belong to that class. Pathogenic microorganisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as biological weapons.
|
http://www.opcw.org/resp/html/cwagents.html
Sigh.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
Thats not the point. Phosphorus when used in as a flame or explosive material isn't a chemical weapon. Its a chemical and its a weapon but its not a chemical weapon. It also isn't banned from what I understand.
Its really nasty, we were warned about it in the military. |
Every armed forces in the world use red and white phosphorus flares.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1108/dailyUpdate.html
Last edited by Hollywoodaction on Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy. Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use. Plants, microorganisms, algae, etc. which produce toxins are not classed as chemical weapons even if the produced toxins belong to that class. Pathogenic microorganisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as biological weapons.
|
http://www.opcw.org/resp/html/cwagents.html
Sigh. [/quote]
Again, this is hair-splitting. It's a chemical, it's a weapon. Chemical weapon. The story was not inaccurate. However, as a class of weapons, they seem to have taken a very narrow stance. So be it. But logically it's a chemical weapon.
Additionally, the story says it seems to have been modified in some way. If it is burning flesh and not clothing, that is absolutely a chemical reaction and not an incindiary one. Sometimes definitions lag behind the realities of war, eh? It's a chemical weapon as described whether or not it has been added to somone's list.
But, hey, this is a lot more fun than discussing the real issues: targeting of civilians; the use o weapons that, whether *defined* as such or not, seem like chemical weapons to an extent that the people they are being used against *will not make a distinction*; the intentional spread of terror as an agent of war. The result of this can only be to inflame the situation and drive ever more into the ranks of the terrorist cells. IOW, it's a very stupid thing to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I agree with you that its really really nasty. Yes I agree with you that its extra worse when used on kids. I want to make that admission absolute so I'll leave the "however" statement I have in my pocket.
Phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. Deal with it, we can only have a debate if you pay attention to the rules.
You have some ammo here about GWB that I think you missed. If GWB stated that Saddam had chemical weapons and those weapons were phosphorus bombs, you could legitimately call him liar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
Yes, I agree with you that its really really nasty. Yes I agree with you that its extra worse when used on kids. I want to make that admission absolute so I'll leave the "however" statement I have in my pocket.
Phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. Deal with it, we can only have a debate if you pay attention to the rules.
You have some ammo here about GWB that I think you missed. If GWB stated that Saddam had chemical weapons and those weapons were phosphorus bombs, you could legitimately call him liar. |
As usueal, you avoid the realities and ignore the points of other posts. Again: if they have weaponized phosphorous so that it only burns flesh it is no longer simply an incindiary. Please respond.
That a NEW type of weapon is not on an OLD list means nothing. Please respond. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Post a legal citation that changes the reclassification. I'm not going to entertain the idea that you can make laws up at will and I am beholden to them. I'm not gonna do that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the point you should be arguing is that White Phosphorus was used in an illegal way. You'd have a stronger argument and in that case if the allegation is true you could legitimately scream "WAR CRIMES" until you ejaculate.
Of course at the same time, I'm absoultely enraged that you pick and claw at every nuance of The US not adhering to every requlation of every war rule agreement at the utmost while there is no criticism of the opponents absolute disregard of those same rules. I'm willing to wager in the incidences above those children were pushed into the buring phosphorus by the insurgents to make it look like The US did really do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
| Post a legal citation that changes the reclassification. I'm not going to entertain the idea that you can make laws up at will and I am beholden to them. I'm not gonna do that. |
You are missing the point or avoiding it. Not sure which. I mean, if I take a bunch of, say, battery acid, put it in an explosive device and explode it with the intent to, and effect of, harming others, I have not just used a chemical weapon?
Please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
| I think the point you should be arguing is that White Phosphorus was used in an illegal way. You'd have a stronger argument and in that case if the allegation is true you could legitimately scream "WAR CRIMES" until you ejaculate. |
I did. It is also a chemical weapon as described. I think we've done this point to death, don't you?
Of course at the same time, I'm absoultely enraged that you pick and claw at every nuance of The US not adhering to every requlation of every war rule agreement at the utmost while there is no criticism of the opponents absolute disregard of those same rules. I'm willing to wager in the incidences above those children were pushed into the buring phosphorus by the insurgents to make it look like The US did really do it.[/quote]
That's because you make assumptions. The "opponents" actions and the heinous nature of them are a given. Why do I need to point them out? And why do you need that explained? Are you trying to make the illogical leap that I support their actions because I criticize the stupidity and hypocrisy of my own government?
I am an American. I can do nothing about the actions of people from other nations and do not necessarily have the information needed to assess whether their actions are hypocritical within the context of their lives, regardless of how *I* feel about it. I do have the information necessary to assess my own goverment, so I do.
The primary issue for me is *my* government's actions because I think the choices made are inflaming and enabling the terrorists/insurgents. We would be much further ahead of the terror issue if we had made better decisions in the past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| I am an American. |
Where are you from? Where did you grow up? What was the name of your elementary school? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, to play the devil's advocate, I'd say there isn't a weapon that isn't chemical. For example, a rifle (made of chemicals) is fired through process that involves chemical reactions that produce gasses (more chemicals), which propels the bullet (you guessed it, made of chemicals). Heck, even wooden clubs are made of chemicals, therefore they are chemical weapons.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bee Positive
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
Thats not the point. Phosphorus when used in as a flame or explosive material isn't a chemical weapon. Its a chemical and its a weapon but its not a chemical weapon. It also isn't banned from what I understand.
Its really nasty, we were warned about it in the military. |
Hear, hear!
Likewise, an atomic bomb isn't a nuclear weapon.
It's nuclear and it's a weapon but it isn't a nuclear weapon.
It also isn't banned from what I understand.
It's really nasty, we were warned about it in the military.
Funny how I ended up getting kicked out of college for writing too many run-on sentences and not knowing the difference between "it's" and "its," but hey, it wasnt a war they sent me to, it was the Vietnam CONFLICT, which was all about falling dominos and preserving the American way of life, which you know is great, dont you, what are you a communist or something?
Damn we Americans is good, where would the world be without us?
BEE POSITIVE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
