|
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 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:57 pm Post subject: The truth about White phosphorus |
 |
|
| Quote: |
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-pike30nov30,0,4456783.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
The truth about WP
By John Pike
November 30, 2005
DESPITE EFFORTS to improve its image abroad, the United States has just suffered a damaging global propaganda defeat. And unfortunately, some of the wounds were self-inflicted.
Three weeks ago, the world's news media erupted into a feeding frenzy over new charges that the Americans were up to their evil old tricks. The story was all too familiar: Once again, it seemed, the United States had committed unspeakable atrocities, then lied about its illegal activities and been exposed. Every day there were fresh revelations and allegations. There is just one problem. It isn't true.
WP. Willy Pete. White phosphorus. For nearly a century, militaries around the world have used cascading showers of burning WP particles on the battlefield. It makes smoke to mark targets or hide friendly troops. It is also an incendiary weapon, used to burn enemy materiel and enemy combatants.
WP was used effectively by U.S. troops in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. It was used by the Russians in Chechnya and all sides in the former Yugoslavia. It has remained a standard part of the U.S. arsenal. The U.S. military used it in the retaking of Fallouja a year ago. It is nasty stuff, but war is nasty.
In early November, Italian state television aired a documentary about the use of white phosphorus in Fallouja. It showed video of mangled bodies said to be civilians killed by white phosphorus. The charges were sensational but, even on cursory examination, unconvincing. Nonetheless, in the days that followed, the story spread like wildfire as world news organizations gave credence to this absurdity.
The U.S. government only compounded the problem by denying that WP had been used in Fallouja for anything other than illuminating the battlefield. The government flatly rejected the charge that it had been used to burn enemy combatants. This claim, however, was untrue and easily disproved. An Army Field Artillery magazine article written earlier this year by soldiers who had fired the artillery in Fallouja described "shake and bake" missions — cannons firing WP incendiary rounds along with high-explosive shells to flush out insurgents from trenches and hiding places.
As usual, it is the coverup that gets you into trouble. The guilty flee where none pursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion.
What are the facts? What is the law?
The corpses shown in the Italian documentary had blackened skin, consistent with putrefaction after death. Their decayed condition provided no indication of the cause of death — except that it was unlikely to have been white phosphorus. The bodies did not have the localized burns expected from WP particles, and their clothes were not burned as they would have been if they had been hit by a shower of WP particles. White phosphorus was indeed used to burn enemy combatants in Fallouja, but the unfortunates depicted in the Italian documentary probably died from some other cause.
Furthermore, the use of white phosphorus against military targets is not prohibited by any treaty. Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets, to prevent future Dresdens. It also restricts the use of incendiary weapons against military targets adjacent to concentrations of civilians, but it only applies to bombs dropped from airplanes, not shells fired by artillery as was done in Fallouja. In any case, the United States has not ratified and is not bound by this protocol.
Another argument being made is that white phosphorus is an illegal chemical weapon, a poison gas. Bloggers soon found a couple of U.S. government websites containing documents that seemed to assert that WP was a chemical weapon. Closer reading revealed nothing of the sort.
Widely ignored in all this is the ultimate source authority, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is the international agency supervising the global destruction of chemical weapons. It flatly states that "napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be [chemical weapons] agents."
So with no direct evidence of an atrocity, and the United States using lawful weapons, why does most of the world now believe just the contrary? And make no mistake: This slowly emerged as a story here, but it has been a big story around the world.
I was confronted with these disparate realities when I was interviewed both by CNN and CNN International a few days after the story broke. Domestic CNN, airing here in the United States, was skeptical of the scandal. CNN International, airing before an audience that had already accepted the Italian documentary as fact, took a far less skeptical approach. The two CNNs — one for the U.S. and one for everyone else — embodied the separate realities now occupied by the United States and the rest of the world. We see ourselves as well intentioned. Much of the rest of the world does not.
And where was the U.S. government while our reputation was dragged through more mud? Where was the State Department's uber-spinmeister, Karen Hughes, all this time? U.S. officials were exacerbating the problem, providing easily debunked denials that simply stoked the feeding frenzy.
The only scandal here is that our government allowed the nation to fall victim to clumsy, cheap anti-American propaganda. At least during the Cold War, we made the Soviets work to discredit us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PIKE is director of globalsecurity.org. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It'd be nice if HE told the truth, eh.
| Quote: |
The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:
"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.
"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons." |
Hence all the debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They can explain all they like but I sure as *beep* wouldn't want that stuff landing anywhere near me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo's back! You know, I was wondering just last night where you'd gone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, I won't argue about whether civilians were killed in Falluja, I will stick to only 3 things 1.Honesty 2.What is right even if it isn't law 3.the source of this article.
1. Honesty- The article makes it clear that when the charges were leveled the administration lied. If they had come out and said "yes we use WP as a weapon but only against the combantants" and also said "most other armies in the world use this as a weapon" then it would have defused the situation. They also showed that the US government cannot be trusted to tell the truth. If they lie about this why should we trust them when they say anything else.
2. What is right even if it isn't law. Justy because the US hasn't signed the treaty doesn't make their actions right. This is exactly what hurts the US image abroad. They say they are againts war crimes but they refuse to be a part of the ICC (and claiming that it will be unjustly used against them in a conspiracy-nut like idea), they won't join Kyoto even though all reputable scientists agree global warming is happening (despite what nutbar Michael Cricton thinks), they opposed the Landmine treaty, they broke their own arms control agreement to build the missile defence shield which saw the Russians invent a missile that can already beat a systme that hasn't even been built. The list goes on. Not taking part in these treaties hurts the US image abroad and adds to arms races (North Korea, Iran, China). It shows everybody that most countries want international agreements and standards but the US and if the US isn't going to take part their is no reason for anyone else too.
3. The source of this article: This article was written by the head of a policy thinktank, not a journalist. I am not bashing him just pointing out that he is wrapping his policy perogatives in the mask of a legimate newspaper, so trust but verify. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Joo's back! You know, I was wondering just last night where you'd gone. |
My thoughts exactly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riley
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: where creditors can find me
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Octavius Hite wrote:
| Quote: |
1. Honesty- The article makes it clear that when the charges were leveled the administration lied. If they had come out and said "yes we use WP as a weapon but only against the combantants" and also said "most other armies in the world use this as a weapon" then it would have defused the situation. They also showed that the US government cannot be trusted to tell the truth. If they lie about this why should we trust them when they say anything else.
2. What is right even if it isn't law. Justy because the US hasn't signed the treaty doesn't make their actions right. This is exactly what hurts the US image abroad. They say they are againts war crimes but they refuse to be a part of the ICC (and claiming that it will be unjustly used against them in a conspiracy-nut like idea), they won't join Kyoto even though all reputable scientists agree global warming is happening (despite what nutbar Michael Cricton thinks), they opposed the Landmine treaty, they broke their own arms control agreement to build the missile defence shield which saw the Russians invent a missile that can already beat a systme that hasn't even been built. The list goes on. Not taking part in these treaties hurts the US image abroad and adds to arms races (North Korea, Iran, China). It shows everybody that most countries want international agreements and standards but the US and if the US isn't going to take part their is no reason for anyone else too.
3. The source of this article: This article was written by the head of a policy thinktank, not a journalist. I am not bashing him just pointing out that he is wrapping his policy perogatives in the mask of a legimate newspaper, so trust but verify. |
Not much to say here other than I totally agree w/ Octavius's points.
1. is a very big problem for this government and why I don't like them. 2. seems to be a recurring problem for us. I'm too lazy to look up all of them but still.
Though, Octavius, a little spell checking couldn't hurt.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Okay, AFN news just told me that it's not a chemical weapon and that no military in the world is better at protecting civilians than they are. I'm sold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Okay, AFN news just told me that it's not a chemical weapon and that no military in the world is better at protecting civilians than they are. I'm sold. |
But have YOU remembered to save for YOUR retirement, mith?
And don't forget to protect yourself against WMDs.. no, STDs.. or is it re-enlisting? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hypnotist wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Okay, AFN news just told me that it's not a chemical weapon and that no military in the world is better at protecting civilians than they are. I'm sold. |
But have YOU remembered to save for YOUR retirement, mith? |
Actually no, recently I've been spending a lot of quality time with this book I got out from the library that I don't really want to give back and I haven't been able to pay much attention to anything else.
Have you ever taken a book out from the library, hypnotist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, even though the only thing we agree on seems to be petrol pricing and alternative fuels, a hearty welcome back.
Now, don't be shy, no blushing .... |
|
| 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
