ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums Chat | 0 Users Online   
   
                 04/25/2014 07:03 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Politics
White House Responds to Justin Bieber Deportation Petition
Tea Party Primary Challenger Says John Boehner Has "Electile Dysfunction"
Putin: Obama Would Save Me From Drowning
Louisiana Upholds Ban on Oral Sex
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should be legally recognized?
  Latest Events
04/24/2014 08:55 AM
maricelclint receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Westhill Consulting Travel And Tours Guide: Experience Spa In Jakarta'
  6.046 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
11/08/2005 05:02 AM ID: 51132 Permalink   

WMD: United States Used Chemical Weapons on Fallujah

 

New evidence has emerged that the USA dropped massive amounts of white phosphorus on the city of Fallujah during attacks on the city in 2004. Since the assault rumors have swirled around that the US used chemical weapons.

In December the government denied reports calling them "widespread myths" and the USinfo website says: "Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes."

Photographs from http://www.rainews24 says it has high quality close up photographs showing residents of Fallujah, some still in bed, whose skin has caramelised or been dissolved by the shells.

 
  Source: news.independent.co.uk  
    WebReporter: JulesLady Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  100 Comments
  
  look for  
 
the documentary...
 
  by: JulesLady     11/08/2005 05:14 AM     
  this war is the vortex  
 
that will suck the world into into oblivion. the opening of the doorway between earth and hell. i'm starting to wish for a gandhi-esque figure to lead us out of this madness
 
  by: cellardweller1   11/08/2005 05:15 AM     
  ironic  
 
they may have WMD... and we definitely do... but who used them?

can you spell OIL?
 
  by: JulesLady     11/08/2005 05:16 AM     
  White phosphorous  
 
Is hardly a 'chemical' weapon - it's an incendinary. It'll burn if you get it on you, but it isn't exactly napalm or thermite - both of which the US possesses, and the latter would leave no evidence except for the lack of evidence.

It also isn't chlorine, cyclosarin or mustard gas.
 
  by: lauriesman     11/08/2005 05:50 AM     
  In other news  
 
Recently uncovered evidence demonstrates irreversibly that the US engaged in the wanton use of guns - also known as firearms, during operations in Fallujah. Previously reports of weapon usage were unsubstantiated with the US Administration refusing to confirm or deny that guns were issued to US soldiers prior to the invasion of Iraq.

As yet unconfirmed reports allege that US forces may also be using grenades, flares and military style uniforms and BDU's within Iraq since the start of the invasion.
 
  by: lauriesman     11/08/2005 06:02 AM     
  For the intellect challenged  
 
WMD = Weapons of Mass Destruction

Phosphorous shells = big bright lights in the sky at night so that soldiers can see clearly without resorting to using night vision equipment (which restricts vision)
 
  by: lauriesman     11/08/2005 06:04 AM     
  White phosphorous  
 
Is also used for creating smoke screens, that cannot be extinguished with water. White phosphorous is used in a variety munitions from simple hand deployed grenades, to full artillery shells used for advanced and large scale deployment of smoke screens to cover soldiers movement.

It is not illegal and has never been illegal, and it surely does NOT qualify as a 'chemical' weapon (in the sense that chlorine and mustard gasses would), nor could it ever been termed a WMD unless the definition were changed to read 'Weapon of Minor Destruction'.

Yes, some insurgents were, and some civilians might have been (regretably), burned badly by the phosphorous but considering the severity of the campaign, and the heavy degree of fighting (including airstrikes) , you have to expect some innocents are going to be hurt.
 
  by: lauriesman     11/08/2005 06:11 AM     
  ...  
 
Fallujah's armed residents drove the US Army out of their city, located 55 kilometres west of Baghdad, in February 2004, and had defeated a three-week long attempt to reoccupy it by 4500 US marines in April. After three-month campaign of daily aerial attacks by US warplanes, on November 8 some 10,000 US Army and Marine Corps troops — backed by a massive artillery bombardment — attacked the city.

Shaykhli said that during the US assault, fleeing residents described “seeing corpses that had melted, which suggests that US troops used napalm gas, a poisonous compound of polystyrene and aircraft fuel which melts bodies”

http://www.greenleft.org.au/...
 
  by: JulesLady     11/08/2005 06:19 AM     
  ...  
 
"Investigators, trained by my medical team, have real evidence that US occupation troops used internationally banned substances in their attacks against Fallujah, such as mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals.", Ash-Shaykhli upheld.

http://www.plenglish.com.mx/...
 
  by: JulesLady     11/08/2005 06:25 AM     
  @lauriesman...  
 
The documentary: 'Fallujah - the hidden massacre' shows that the US did not use the substance for its legitimate purpose - as an aid to highlight the position of the enemy but dropped it indiscriminately in large amounts.


http://shortnews.com/...
 
  by: JulesLady     11/08/2005 06:42 AM     
  @jules  
 
Oh yes, and those are nicely independant and unbiased sources!

It was not Fallujah's armed residents, but the insurgents using Fallujah as a base of operations. White phosphorous munitions do not, in large, cause melting and burning - the most common effects are respiratory and necrosis of the jaw.

If however, the US had used it indiscriminately EVERYONE WOULD BE DEAD. White phosphorous in quantities as alleged deprives closed environments of oxygen.

In otherwords, the allegations are not borne out by the actual chemical nature of white phosphorous. In addition, another source (pro-Islam) that I read during fact checking, described the corpses that were burned/melted as mujahadeen (sp?).

This documentary sounds like nothing more than sensationalisation of a few bodies, mixed with a lot of drama and misinformation.

A simple google will get you the facts on white phosphorous, if you're curious.
 
  by: lauriesman     11/08/2005 07:03 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
your readiness to twist the trust is very apparent. if something that burns your skin off on contact is not considered a "chemical weapon" than what is? what's your definition of a chemical?

it has been clearly documented that white phosphorus has been used by the US military with similar results upon civilians as in vietnam with napalm. why do you have such a hard-on to defend these practices which indiscriminately kill women and children?

If you've seen the charred bodies of the civilians in Fallujah it's obvious that they weren't killed by bullets. here's a link you can watch when you're done lying to yourself.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/...
 
  by: manilaryce     11/08/2005 07:11 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
Just one thing I read in The Age yesterday. mujahadeen means a faithful Muslim who strives, not neccessarily a fighter. So if the source was pro-islam, then mujahadeen would probably cover civillians as well.

Don't know about the WP claims. But it's quite possible, the US was mightly pissed at the time.
 
  by: jendres     11/08/2005 07:22 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
yep cos a documentary is only really legitimate if produced by the government...
"The documentary: 'Fallujah - the hidden massacre' shows that the US did not use the substance for its legitimate purpose - as an aid to highlight the position of the enemy but dropped it indiscriminately in large amount"

also note how the attack took place just after the election results were announced... thats important...
 
  by: JulesLady     11/08/2005 07:31 AM     
  btw  
 
they guy called it whiskey pete not willy pete. (I thought that it sounded strange.)
 
  by: jendres     11/08/2005 07:39 AM     
  well  
 
I just saw the interesting part. (about 27 mins into that video.)

Definately used as an area effect weapon indescrimantly. It was fired from helicopters at the ground not up into the air.

the USinfo website says: "Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes."

Well the USinfo website lies.
 
  by: jendres     11/08/2005 07:43 AM     
  so will Bush be tried  
 
by the UN? or a nice load of Republicans... hrmmm
 
  by: JulesLady     11/08/2005 07:47 AM     
  According to..  
 

"Because of this, WP has long had a secondary role as an incendiary, either directly or more usually as a "first fire" material. Contrary to another popular myth, it does not burn particularly fiercely, especially in comparison to other incendiaries like thermite. As an incendiary, it is most effective against highly flammable targets like very dry vegetation or petrol, oils and lubricants"

Wikipedia, white phosphorus is not particularly effective at burning, or at least not nearly as good as thermite or napalm. It's primary use is smoke screening or illumination. So why drop white phosphorus if napalm would be more effective and you were just going to deny the hell out of it anyway?
 
  by: tiggyfiggy   11/08/2005 08:00 AM     
  yes yes whatever  
 
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 ammunition are not classed as a chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use. Plants, micro-organisms, the produced toxins belong to that class. Pathogenic micro-organisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as biological weapons.

* Chemicals that blister: sulphur mustard, lewisite, nitrogen mustard, mustard-leweisite, phosgene-oxime.

* Chemicals that affect the nerves: VX, Sarin, Soman, tabun, novichole agents.

* Chemicals that cause choking: cholrine, phosgene, diphosgene, chloropicrin.

* Chemicals that affect the blood: herygem, cynanide, cynaogen chlorine.

* Chemicals for riot control: tear agent 2 (SN gas), tear agent 0 (CS gas), psychedelic agent 3 (BZ)


http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/...

so how much do you think they dropped to burn the bodies that badly?
 
  by: JulesLady     11/08/2005 08:11 AM     
  @tiggyfiggy  
 
because they didnt want another vietnam...??

also because if no one believes it they can say oh we used them to light up the sky... and you would never see the actual burned corpses...
 
  by: JulesLady     11/08/2005 08:13 AM     
  nice  
 
So the US goes to war to disarm Saddam of his WMDs. We use our own WMDs against Iraqi civilians, then announce Iraq doesn't actually have any WMDs.

can everyone say hypocrisy?
 
  by: manilaryce     11/08/2005 08:15 AM     
  For the intellect challenged  
 
there is no WMD in Iraq.

White Phosphorous is used to spread democracy in Iraq, and it's an halarious gas. Indeed!

Bush servants don't kill people but liberate them against tyranny.

Indeed, laurieman!

Unfair and unbalanced...







 
  by: Big pic   11/08/2005 10:29 AM     
  White Phosphorous  
 
White Phosphorous is not a WMD... I'm not being funny but do you guys actually know what a WMD is?
 
  by: koultunami     11/08/2005 11:53 AM     
  Thanks  
 
Koult, Tiggy - at least some people are remaining rational, regardless of their view of the war.

Yes, white phosphorus IS fired by helicopters and artillery - primarily for smoke to cover troop movement.

Unless you were DIRECTLY hit by a white phosphorus shell you would NOT suffer hideous burns or have your skin melted. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You're more likely to be injured by the impact, and/or respiratory effects.

For reference, large scale deployment of white phosphorous munitions for lighting/smoke is used by ALL major nations of the world. It does not constitute a 'chemical' weapon in the sense of a weapon used directly to harm, there are much better legal alternatives for that. Yes it is a chemical, but then, if you want to go to that definition so is pretty much everything in your house - and yes, that would make your window cleaner a chemical weapon too, if some person was idiotic or unlucky enough to end up on the wrong end of its toxidity.

Break it down: WMD - Weapon (An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword) of Mass (1. Of, relating to, characteristic of, directed at, or attended by a large number of people: mass education; mass communication.
2. Done or carried out on a large scale: mass production.
3. Total; complete: The mass result is impressive.) Destruction (1.
a. The act of destroying.
b. The condition of having been destroyed.
2. The cause or means of destroying)

Please, people, it doesn't get any clearer than that!!
 
  by: lauriesman     11/08/2005 01:14 PM     
  @manila  
 
The smoke produced by white phosphorous ignition does not burn, it is only the direct substance itself that does - in otherwords you would have to be at ground zero to receive any kind of severe burns. Technically anything can be used as a weapon, but some things are more suited than others. White phosphorous is not suitable as a weapon, and is not used as one. Hence while it is a chemical it cannot be classed as a chemical weapon. IF the US wished to engage in that kind of warfare they could quite easily deploy thermite which would consume a car - body, chasis, engine, driver, tires, and even eat a little into the ground as well. Much more effective.

White phosphorous deployment was absolutely necessary to screen US troop movements from heavy sniper fire that was ongoing within Fallujah, it was also used to light up possible sniper positions to reveal the hiding insurgents.

Please get a grip on your anti-Bush hysteria long enough to deal rationally with the propaganda produced by BOTH sides of the argument.
 
  by: lauriesman     11/08/2005 01:29 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
"Unless you were DIRECTLY hit by a white phosphorus shell you would NOT suffer hideous burns or have your skin melted. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You're more likely to be injured by the impact, and/or respiratory effects."


yes this is what they are saying they fired round after round after round by helicopter down onto the city ...

what about that can you not understand?

have you seen the documentary?

well i have and its pretty gruesome...
 
  by: juleslady     11/08/2005 01:44 PM     
  they are still using the stuff on them in iraq  
 
do a google on

"Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water."

see how many stories suddenly withdrew that sentence or suddenly disappeared altogether
 
  by: juleslady     11/08/2005 02:15 PM     
  that from a story about fallujah  
 
from YESTERDAY!!!
 
  by: juleslady     11/08/2005 02:16 PM     
  so since they are still firing rounds of this stuf  
 
at the iraqi people:

Break it down: WMD - Weapon (An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword) of Mass (1. Of, relating to, characteristic of, directed at, or attended by a large number of people:

i think thats covered...
 
  by: juleslady     11/08/2005 02:19 PM     
  @JulesLady & Lauriesman  
 
Okay what is the big deal here people we may have used alot of that white powder to possibly harm the enemy. Weather it is a WMD it isnt, was there mass destriction and death, no. JulesLady and Lauries man the both seem too comitted to their side to hear arguments from the other. Here is my advice, why care? Will it change anything if you are right or wrong, no it has already happened. There is no point in debating the past. Just get over it, I promise you there will be things 100x worse in the future than the incident described above in the article.
 
  by: juggalotoka   11/08/2005 05:56 PM     
  That story is a joke.  
 
True or not, it's nothing compared to the depleted uranium widly used by the US which is OUTLAYED around the world.
 
  by: Calamité   11/08/2005 06:44 PM     
  Whats wrong with DU  
 
It's not outlawed throughout the world...Everytime you ride on a large civilian aircraft, you're being exposed to it.

DU is commonly used to counter balance aeroplanes, to shield FROM radiation and also used to make drill bits for the oil industry because of it's density.

And while it is radioactive, it isn't radioactive enough to cause damage from superficial exposure.
 
  by: TheBackwardsman   11/08/2005 07:14 PM     
  You sure?  
   
  by: Kaleid   11/08/2005 07:19 PM     
  TheBackwardsman  
 
The radiation levels in parts of Iraq are over 200 TIMES the amount of normal because of the use of DU munitions. You're telling me that can not do significant cellular damage?
 
  by: banshee9898     11/08/2005 07:45 PM     
  On the white stuff...  
 
http://www.scescape.net/...

"Ordinary phosphorus is a waxy white solid; when pure it is colorless and transparent. It is insoluble in water, but soluble in carbon disulfide. It takes fire spontaneously in air, burning to the pentoxide. It is very poisonous, 50 mg constituting an approximate fatal dose. Exposure to white phosphorus should not exceed 0.1 mg/m^3 (8-hour time-weighted average - 40-hour work week). White phosphorus should be kept under water, as it is dangerously reactive in air, and it should be handled with forceps, as contact with the skin may cause severe burns."

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/...

"Little information is available about the health effects that may be caused by white phosphorus. Most of what is known about the effects of breathing white phosphorus is from studies of workers. Most of what is known about the effects of eating white phosphorus is from reports of people eating rat poison or fireworks that contained it."

"Breathing white phosphorus for short periods may cause coughing and irritation of the throat and lungs. Breathing white phosphorus for long periods may cause a condition known as "phossy jaw" which involves poor wound healing of the mouth and breakdown of the jaw bone.

Eating or drinking small amounts of white phosphorus may cause liver, heart, or kidney damage, vomiting, stomach cramps, drowsiness, or death. We do not know what the effects are from eating or drinking very small amounts of white phosphorus-containing substances over long periods of time. Skin contact with burning white phosphorus may burn skin or cause liver, heart, and kidney damage.

We do not know whether or not white phosphorus can affect the ability to have children or cause birth defects in people."
 
  by: tellgar     11/08/2005 08:07 PM     
  Gee I don't know Jules  
 
What part of 'smoke screen to protect troops from heavy sniper fire' do YOU not understand.

What is apparent to me is that you have absolutely no understanding of the realities of tactics, combat and war in general. That's fine, you don't have to. But acting like the US is commiting some huge attrocity for the most minor side-effect of heavy combat in and around civilian populations smacks of a determination to find fault with anything and everything to do with the Bush administration and Iraq in general.

Like I said, the US also used firearms, and you know what? They kill people, yes, even civilians when they get caught in the firing line or hit by ricochets.

What would you have the US troops do? Wave big signs that say "Attention snipers and insurgents, Please don't shoot at us as we move into and around this city"?
 
  by: lauriesman     11/08/2005 08:14 PM     
  sorry to take this in a new direction....  
 
sorry to take this in a new direction, but enough has been said above that I have little to add, however I wanted to make a comment about the DU, its use in the first gulf war, and its continued use today. It is widely known that most, if not all of our casualties in the first gulf war were from friendly fire, which ranged somewhere from 150-300. It is also widely known that something like 200,000 veterans suffer from gulf war syndrome, and several studies have shown that this is directly related to depleted uranium. I would consider this friendly fire as well. What are we doing still using this, and how many Iraqis are we going to/have we ruined/killed?
 
  by: mingr   11/08/2005 08:38 PM     
  U.S would never do this... right...  
 
You know outside of stating whether this is fact or not, you people do REALISE that that it is completely believable that the U.S would resort to these sorts of things? Its almost 2006 and the U.S has no sort of respect left in a worldview - with all the atrocities documented in the war and the many many lies, if this was true, most people would say 'Whats new, its the US and its Bush'.

Patriots? You can be as patriotic as you want, its just a shame about the fact most of the world considers the US the bad guys.
 
  by: Vswift   11/08/2005 08:52 PM     
  @Kaleid  
 
http://www.who.int/...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...



Are you sure?
You supplied me with 2 links, which both point to the same article. And somehow I'm convinced that a source such as the WHO has better authority than "The Independent". Similar studies by the FAD have come to a similar conclusion.

My response was towards Calamite’s rant, saying that the use of DU was banned in several countries.

My point was that it is safe for use in many civilian, industrial and medical purposes. Military matters are another concern.

I'm sure in the battle field a lot of it would be in particulate form and that’s where it becomes a problem. As the WHO says, your kidneys would have the greatest potential for damage, and if you're breathing it in, it will enter your blood stream and it will eventually have to go through your kidney.
This would not surprise me at all, a lot of metals are like this.

Let me give you an example - Cu, used for piping, wiring and heat exchangers. It is perfectly fine in solid form, in particulate form you can get all sorts of liver damage from breathing it in.
 
  by: TheBackwardsman   11/08/2005 09:25 PM     
  Another WMD  
 
I have also heard that the US military is conducting operations during the daytime, which means in the SUNSHINE! Imagine that! Causing the defending Iraqis to be subjected to high levels of UV radiation deemed by medical professionals to cause cancer in large enough doses.

The new Bush administration WMD: the sun. Get over your anti-bush rants and see that in order to save countless american lives you need to use LEGAL substances.
 
  by: rhanks   11/08/2005 09:48 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
(I'll ignore the idiotic comment above)

Did you see the video? It pretty clearly shows the wp being fired at the ground for a sustained attack (not a smokescreen since it was at night).

Also from tellgar's comment it sounds like nasty stuff and probably should be banned from use as a weapon. (not saying the same for use as a flare and smokescreen)
 
  by: jendres     11/08/2005 09:59 PM     
  Damn weapon of mass deception  
 
lauriesman: Yes we are aware that the US uses guns and grenades and such...even white phosphorous from what i read. But the difference between a gun and white phosphorous is clear,you can kill with both but the gun won't take out civilians that stays in their homes...on the other hand white phosphorous will kill and melt every live being if they stay in that same house if it's in the range of the cloud,notice i say cloud not blast cause the particles ARE deadly. In case you didn't listen to the documentary the white phosphorous react with Air,water and yeah skin too. So yes this is a WMD in a cloud no less than a scud full of anthrax,only the radius of effect is smaller but the end result is the same,people killed by chemical agents.



The more i hear about the war in iraq the more i believe it will end as another vietnam and the US will look bad and won't give a shit as usual. But if i remember correctly the US were the one telling others that they can't have WMD yet the US treaten of using WMD like nukes if they get attacked by chemical weapons and such, and they won't hesitate to use their own chemical weapons on their ennemies,even in secrecy. If there is something i've missed here please tell me cause from what i see the US is going to have all the world against them in a near future.


I will conclude my post by saying from what i heard in history so far AFTER the WWII, USA was the most powerful country to use chemical weapons on others and now they say no one else can have them,just remember columbia - spraying the crops,Agent Orange - vietnam,etc. I personnally think that the US should do a conscience exam to see the things they preach and what they do are very different from one another.
 
  by: Korzen   11/08/2005 10:08 PM     
  And the US will look bad...  
 
Quote: and the US will look bad...

---
You mean they haven't looked bad already for pretty much all of Bush's presidency? I think bad is an understatement.. isnt laughing stock of the world more precise.

Here is the important quest.. who actually takes the US seriously these days in anything? Half its own population doesnt.. lets just start there.
 
  by: Vswift   11/08/2005 10:22 PM     
  @jendres  
 
Smoke screens are needed at night. Night Vision Goggles are under $400 each now, and I dare say the people funding the 'insurgence', 'Freedom fighters' or 'terriorists' (whatever you want to call them) have more than enough money to outfit snipers with NVG. The smoke is just as neccessery as during the day.
As for the rest of the stuff, the US announced they were invading Fallujah for days before they did. If i was living there and i was not a fighter i would have gotten the hell out. Both sides use whatever they can to distroy the enemy. curiously though, how can anyone be sure this was from phosphorus, not bodies deliberetly 'melted' by some other means. If the 'insurgents' convince the people of Iraq that the US is using chem weapons then more will join their cause. Not that I know for sure though, I wassnt there, just like the rest of you. Since 9/11 I dotn trust any news sourse, to many twist facts, over sensationalise and out right lie (then print a retraction 15 days later in the back of the paper) just to get their name out, 15 minutes of fame and a nice pay rise. The actual truth went out the window for everyone years ago.
If you want to make the news accurate, imprision any reporter found to be lieing or 'deceving' in order to sell his artical. Untill that day they all will say whatever backs up what they already think.
 
  by: ssxxxssssss   11/08/2005 10:24 PM     
  @korzen  
 
WRONG! The smoke particles themselves DO NOT CAUSE BURNS, this is because the smoke is NOT WHITE PHOSPHOROUS it is SMOKE.

To be burned by white phosphorous you have to come into direct contact with the agent itself, not the effects of the agent.

White phosphorous is highly reactive, burns hot and quickly, and is deployed in small quantities that generate smoke screens and lighting - as I said before, and explained, you would have to be at ground zero - that is, point of impact, and splashed with the raw white phosphorous compound, to recieve severe burns from it. Contact with the smoke generated will not cause burns, it may however cause respiratory and other health problems if you breathe it.
 
  by: lauriesman     11/08/2005 10:50 PM     
  lauriesman  
 
lauriesman, what do you think everyone has an IQ less than zero? The things you say, are you paid by Bush? Please get a JOB or a BRAIN....
 
  by: karalla   11/09/2005 02:35 AM     
  Ok, quick chemistry lesson  
 
White phosphorus ignites when exposed to air, burning to phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5) which is a gas. When this gas comes in contact with water it forms phosphoric acid which I think is H3PO4. So the gas being exposed to sweat on a body would create acid which would become worse if someone tried to wash it off. More tonight.
 
  by: ixuzus     11/09/2005 02:54 AM     
  @lauriesman and sssxxsss  
 
Guys watch the video before you make anymore comments on how the stuff was used.

It was clearly used as a area effect weapon. (The whole idea behind ABC weapons isn't it? large area of effect?) And it was fired repeatedly into what looks like residential housing. More than once so it wasn't just used as a smokescreen.
 
  by: jendres     11/09/2005 03:13 AM     
  @jendres  
 
I was not arguing that they may have mis-used it, dont get me wrong.
I was just stating that a smoke screen is a valid tactic even at night due to modern technology.
Whoever did this to the bodies has something to answer for. I am just not sure it was the phosphorus flares as this is not thr first time they were used for a smoke screen etc, yet this is the first time anyone has brought up these effects. So that leads me to think, either the bodies were tampered with, or it was not phosphorus flares that were being launched.
 
  by: ssxxxssssss   11/09/2005 04:41 AM     
  @sssxxsss  
 
Well i suggest you check out the video. I was thinking the same thing as you before I saw it. "Flares? bah". But you will see that they fired ALOT of them into about the area of about a hectare. Maybe around 50 flares a shot and fired about 15 times.
 
  by: jendres     11/09/2005 05:00 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
you simply have no idea what you're talking about. there is video documentation of the US using white phosphorus as a weapon in fallujah. watch the video, then take a course in chemistry.
 
  by: manilaryce     11/09/2005 05:33 AM     
  @Jandres  
 
I was kinda more hinting at something else either being fired along with the flares, or something else in the shells with the flares.
Many soldiers wont activly use anything remotly like chem warfare, so simple, dont give them something that has 'chemical missle' written on it, give them what they think is a safe inert substance. without scientific data of the bodies its hard to tell if this was the phosphorus or another compound.
 
  by: ssxxxssssss   11/09/2005 05:34 AM     
  @sssxxsss  
 
or even better, just get them to use a tool that they would use all the time, just in a slightly different way.
 
  by: jendres     11/09/2005 05:42 AM     
  link to the video  
 
http://www.democracynow.org/...

Download the full documentary: "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre"
 
  by: karalla   11/09/2005 06:01 AM     
  WP= Whiskey Pete or in Vietnam it was Willy Pete  
 
I gues Whiskey sounds more masculine. Iraq Military radios crack with were gonna drop some Whiskey Pete on em...

In Vietnam if a chopper went down in and we worried about it falling into johnny's hands we just throw in a willy pete and watch it burn.
We stay clear of the white smoke cause it melts the skin on contact, doesn't touch the clothes cause its an gas-bourne acid, mixes with the water in your skin and burns you.
If you breath it, it burns your throat and lungs causing scarring and you can suffocate or if you breath alot your insides start to melt through you.

Its a WMD when used as such. It keeps burning without oxygen and in water. We dropped the willy pete from a chopper to mark a bomb sight, they can see it up there with no problem cause its so bright and one plane can make one-quarter of an acre of jungle dissapear.
 
  by: MmmMan     11/09/2005 06:39 AM     
  Watched the clip twice  
 
Once with the sound, and once with the sound off

I saw ONE maybe 3 second shot of a helicopter deploying white phosphorous AS A SMOKE SCREEN. I saw maybe 5-7 different corpses that exhibited some degree of burns - but no evidence that those burns were the result of contact with white phosphorous. I see at least one perfect example of an explosion producing a white plume of smoke that was NOT white phosphorous. All in all, i see nothing that a) provides evidence of wide-scale indiscriminate use of and deliberate targetting with white phosphorous munitions, and b) no sign of anything that approximates an WMD.

Show me the masses of dead bodies from white phosphorous, or the widescale destruction of Fallujah from white phosphorous, where is the proof of WMD!?!

A suicide bomber runs into a line of people and kills 47, destroys buildings and parked cars, we don't call that a weapon of mass destruction - yet by the very 'documentary' making these allegations there were fewer deaths from white phosphorous than from a single suicide bomb.

Another thing evident in the clip - US soldiers ducking for cover underfire. I happened to download a short propaganda clip from bittorrent yesterday of US soldiers under sniper fire within Fallujah and other parts of Iraq, including soliders being systematically targetted and either killed or wounded as they attempt to locate the sniper.

Anyone can take a selection of corpse images, some battle footage, and interviews with hand picked individuals they know will support their allegations and claim it is a 'documentary' that doesnt change the fact that a) it isn't, and b) it is blatant propaganda. What surprises me is that you seem to accept it on face value and eat up every word as if it is gospel itself. If the US produced something similar in support of an operation you would be tearing it apart. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
 
  by: lauriesman     11/09/2005 06:40 AM     
  link to the video  
 
http://www.democracynow.org/...

Download the full documentary: "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre"
 
  by: karalla   11/09/2005 06:50 AM     
  lauriesman  
 
lauriesman, maybe you should join the army, so you can go there and confirm for us, all this knowledge you have in your little head...
 
  by: karalla   11/09/2005 06:56 AM     
  Goose - Gander  
 
Let's get to the first point of the mess, America has no right to be there in the first place, "NO WMD." Second if someone came to America with tanks and guns, would you smile and say hello, or would you fight for your home and your family... Goose! Gander!
 
  by: karalla   11/09/2005 07:00 AM     
  Goose - Gander  
 
Let's get to the first point of the mess, America has no right to be there in the first place, "NO WMD." Second if someone came to America with tanks and guns, would you smile and say hello, or would you fight for your home and your family... Goose! Gander!
 
  by: karalla   11/09/2005 07:08 AM     
  @karalla  
 
That is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the US has been using white phosphorous as a WMD in Fallujah.

The issue here is not whether the US has a right or justifiable reason to be in Iraq, it is simple question - Did the US deploy white phosphorous in excess and use it deliberately as a weapon against civilians within Fallujah.
 
  by: lauriesman     11/09/2005 07:24 AM     
  Irrelevant or Relevant???????????????  
 
If they lied about WMD, do you think that the government is going to start telling the truth now? We do not have to be Rocket Scientist on that answer!

The bottom line is, what does the US want, OIL, that is what we are there for and also since george is having conversations with god, this is part of the crusade... It is RELEVANT!
 
  by: karalla   11/09/2005 07:56 AM     
  Irrelevant or Relevant???????????????  
 
If they lied about WMD, do you think that the government is going to start telling the truth now? We do not have to be Rocket Scientist on that answer!

The bottom line is, what does the US want, OIL, that is what we are there for and also since george is having conversations with god, this is part of the crusade... It is RELEVANT!
 
  by: karalla   11/09/2005 08:06 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
stop being so stubborn. Also i see you are resorting to diversion. I thought you might.

@mmmman
You seem to have some knowledge about the chemical. If you've seen the footage would you call that using the WP as a smokescreen or a weapon?
 
  by: jendres     11/09/2005 08:08 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
As you said, MmmMan does seem to have some knowledge on the subject. that's probably why his statement contradicts yours.

MmmMan said: We stay clear of the white smoke cause it melts the skin on contact, doesn't touch the clothes cause its an gas-bourne acid, mixes with the water in your skin and burns you.
If you breath it, it burns your throat and lungs causing scarring and you can suffocate or if you breath alot your insides start to melt through you.

you said: WRONG! The smoke particles themselves DO NOT CAUSE BURNS, this is because the smoke is NOT WHITE PHOSPHOROUS it is SMOKE. To be burned by white phosphorous you have to come into direct contact with the agent itself, not the effects of the agent.

lauriesman, your statements contradict the statements of eye witnesses. you're wrong about white phosphorous.
 
  by: manilaryce     11/09/2005 08:24 AM     
  adjustment  
 
sorry jendres. i meant MmmMan's comments contradicted lauriesman, not you.
 
  by: manilaryce     11/09/2005 08:36 AM     
  hahaha  
 
np. I think Lauriesman is right and wrong. The smoke itself is harmless, but unfortunately it is most likely that the WP is dispersed in particle form throughout the smoke.

That is why MmmMan said that you should avoid the smoke. It's not the smoke that is dangerous but it is a marker for what is.
 
  by: jendres     11/09/2005 09:10 AM     
  @jendres  
 
I'd like to know what mmm thinks too, to me that is a typical rapid deployment of white phosphorous in a spread designed to generate significant concealment.

If anyone else has had direct experience with the use of white phosphorous munitions, feel free to chime in.

And Jendres, yes, you are right, the smoke itself is not what is directly harmful - although breathing it should be avoided, it wont burn you, however the white phosphorous itself will. It is my understanding that the actual phosphorous is contained relatively close to ground zero, becoming more and more dispersed the further from ground zero the cloud expands.
 
  by: lauriesman     11/09/2005 09:57 AM     
  @karalla  
 
Again, yes it is irrelevant because it has no bearing at all on whether the US is or isnt using white phosphorous as a chemical weapon of mass destruction. The US could be there to heist collections of specialty toothpicks and it wouldn't make an iota of difference as to whether they did or didnt use white phosphorous as a chemical weapon of mass destruction.
 
  by: lauriesman     11/09/2005 09:59 AM     
  Gallery  
   
  by: Kaleid   11/09/2005 05:37 PM     
  rumors have swirled around !  
 
Is it me or are there actually people still around Sn who didn’t know US troops were using WMD’s and looking to use more . I usually follow falluja through http://dahrjamailiraq.com/... he’s been saying all of the above for ages worth checking out his website .
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     11/09/2005 06:10 PM     
  What open eyes can see.  
 
What we hear: Attack Iraq over solid evidence they possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and the possibility of nuclear weapon development.

What we see: No WMD's in Iraq. No development of nuclear weapons. The use of Napalm, Depleted Uranium munitions, and possible indiscriminate use of white phosphorus on civilians by US forces.

What we hear: "We do not use torture."

What we see: The transport of prisoners to countries that do use torture, as well as the use of torture on Iraqi prisoners.

Some believe what they hear and others, what they see. I don't believe what they tell me to see.
 
  by: banshee9898     11/09/2005 07:49 PM     
  About DU  
 
Depleted Uranium is uranium.

If it was depleted, it'd be lead.
It isnt lead.

Now, holding a piece of DU foran hour isnt going to harm you, noticably.

Breathing in DU particles will screw you over.

Depleted Uranium is nuclear waste, it should be stored for a few thousand years in concrete bunkers, however its cheaper to tip missiles with it.

A much better, and safer option, would be tungsten, however this is expensive, and isnt a nuclear waste people want disposed of.
 
  by: Domo MK III   11/09/2005 08:47 PM     
  If the war were fought on American soil,  
 
Americans would be a lot more sensitive to the poisonous effects of DU.
 
  by: Ec5618   11/09/2005 09:17 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
yes, but the thing is the WP is raining down on a large area breaking up as it falls.

Its use in areas where civillians might be around is banned under that UN convention (linked in wikipedia) which US refuses to sign. So while most others in the world think that it is an illegal use of WP, US says no we are using it legally. (I wonder if that counts when they are in another country? Is Iraq a signatory?)
 
  by: jendres     11/10/2005 01:38 AM     
  That is NOT the real question.  
 
The question is, to all those americans here, right wing or left wing.

Would you agree that my country uses DU and WP in your cities, when you know what follows when you come into contact of free particules of the two previous.

Especially DU which will transform you into a living cancer and chimicly destabilized indivudual. Would accept willingly the civilians being burned by WP while it rains down from the sky?

Would you be thankful is we ruined your country and then invade it on the possibility that you are harboring terrorrists, making WMD, using WMD, torturing, stockpiling WMD, making, developping and stockpiling bio and chemical agents. Assinating, toppling governement/individuals that do not agree with your views?

Wait the last part is true my bad. Ask yourself about the first ones, not the last.
 
  by: Calamité   11/10/2005 05:36 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
After reading you and juleslady going back and forth for a bit, I can't help but ask... why is it that you simply cannot believe that the US would do anything wrong? What is your reasoning for your unrelenting stubborness that the US is almighty, that it can do no wrong? That every movement by the government is for a pure and holy cause, and nothing the country has done in the last 6 years has ever been wrong?

I simply do not understand how someone who *seems* to be smart does not even bother to question things that just don't seem to fit. Even if you come to the same conclusions you have already drawn, would it hurt to scrutinize your government once in a while?
 
  by: fredfredrickson   11/10/2005 10:48 AM     
  Uranium isn't just uranium  
 
Uranium comes in different isotopes and DU is considered an engineering material and not nuclear waste - like I've already stated.

"If it was depleted, it'd be lead.
It isn’t lead."
DU is defined as U having a very small percentage of U-235. It is depleted because the U-235 which is used to achieve critical mass is depleted, not because it is atomically stable.

Even Pb isn't always atomically stable, there are just under 30 isotopes of it which are radioactive.

"Depleted Uranium is nuclear waste, it should be stored for a few thousand years in concrete bunkers, however its cheaper to tip missiles with it."

Your first point has already been explained. No one stores nuclear waste in concrete bunkers for the long term. They stick it in giant swimming pools. Why? Well gamma particles produced, can be shielded with 1/4 inch curtain of water. While the alpha particles produced by DU can't even penetrate a thickness of 4 cells. SO as you've said would be harmless unless you ingested it.

"A much better, and safer option, would be tungsten, however this is expensive, and isn’t a nuclear waste people want disposed of."
Please explain to me how building a complex out of tungsten to store low level nuclear waste is a good idea? I would say that it's over-engineered.


Again I ask you, have you ever been on a passenger airplane? If so you've been exposed to DU, but don't worry you receive more radiation from cosmic rays up there than the DU.
 
  by: TheBackwardsman   11/10/2005 11:18 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
if there are any doubts left in your head here's a quote from a US Army publication called Field Artillery Magazine (march issue).

"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."
 
  by: manilaryce     11/10/2005 11:44 AM     
  @fred  
 
Lauriesman is an aussie.

As I have hinted at earlier he is also strong willed.
 
  by: jendres     11/10/2005 11:48 AM     
  @jendres  
 
I always thought he was a US Ex-pat, or citizen that lived in Sydney
 
  by: TheBackwardsman   11/10/2005 11:52 AM     
  @fredfred  
 
I'm Australian, not American, and I don't support everything Bush or any government for that matter, has done.

Bush has managed to destroy the blossoming hope of a fairer more equitable America that was just beginning to unfold. Poetic, I know, but I really was thinking of moving there, of the potential that was building - but the last 5 years has ground that hope out under the hobnailed boots of corporate greed and backroom deals.

I still hold hope for the future of Iraq and the middle east in general, and my reasons for supporting the war have nothing to do with WMD's or any of Bush & Co's supposed reasons.

I don't believe it is about the OIL, but that is a simple case of math and logic.

In this particular case though, while the use of white phosphorous might have been overdone (and I'm not prepared to say that without more reliable evidence), it certainly didnt approach the proportions of a WMD - not in any sense that I would call something a WMD in any case.
 
  by: lauriesman     11/10/2005 12:12 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
what kind of evidence do you need? the army itself said it used it on people for purposes extending beyond illumination. do you know more than the army about this?
 
  by: manilaryce     11/10/2005 12:34 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
Would you be willing to say that deploying this type of chemical agent in a nonstandard fashion, resulting in death and bodily harm, is 'using chemical weapons'?
 
  by: Ec5618   11/10/2005 12:35 PM     
  I have to agree with Lauriesman  
 
The use of WP in this article is nothing to compare to any WMD. The use was cruel and most likely against the Geneva convention. But in no way it was a WMD near usage.

You have the right of calling it war crime. But not WMD.
 
  by: Calamité   11/10/2005 02:07 PM     
  jesus  
 
talk about being a popular topic...
 
  by: securityunion     11/10/2005 02:27 PM     
  @ lauriesman  
 
Huge staement can you please explain? To quote you
"I don't believe it is about the OIL, but that is a simple case of math and logic."

 
  by: Thinking   11/10/2005 03:50 PM     
  Definition of WMD  
 
from wikipedia:

The US military refers to WMD as:

Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Weapons of mass destruction can be high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons, but exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon.([10])

While in US civil defense, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:

(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life. (18 U.S.C. Section 2332a)

The US FBI also considers conventional weapons (i.e. bombs) as WMD: "A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders".
 
  by: manilaryce     11/10/2005 10:19 PM     
  @backwardsman  
 
As I said, ingesting DU, like you would if your near a DU shell when it explodes, or drink water that once passed through that area, or ate food grown there.
Or worked on a contruction site there 10 years later.

Holding, it, will do you no harm.
So sitting on a plane made partly from it is fine, growing food anywhere neaby a shell impact, very bad.

The tungsten comment was actualy about a replacement for DU, not storage.

Storage is concrete, if you care to priviude a link that water blocks gamma waves, go for it, however if memory serves, it takes several feet of lead.
 
  by: Domo MK III   11/10/2005 10:55 PM     
  I don't believe it!  
 
U.S.A Would never put any innocent lives in danger, they are there for my well being, my families well being, and they care truly Mahatma Ghandi type care for the international cultures and people world wide.

God I feel like such a liar... :(

Actions speaker louad then words and common sense goes a loooooong way.

For those brainwashed patriots who defend the stolen land they so worhsip on (stolen you know from who). I'll do this simply...

1. Bomb another country = bad president
2. Bomb innocent children = condemned U.S. soldiers
3. Bomb other country because U.S. got a boo-boo = WRONG

You bomb the country because you need to keep the image alive and among other things steal more resources like you've been doing for the past 500 + years from the original peoples who lived long before you on THEIR lands.

I'm not bashing U.S. I'm just writing the truth to how I see it to be...big difference!

If someone punches you and you punch back...then you go around telling people how much of an asshole that person who punched you first is...that seems rational.
 
  by: morph   11/11/2005 04:22 AM     
  ...  
 
http://www.triumf.ca/...
Gamma rays don't actually interact with matter like beta and alpha particles. But this handbook written fro TRIUMF is a pretty good guide to nuclear safety.

http://www.aecl.ca/...

All the way down the bottom. Water storage is used to short to mid term storage - The water with an addition of H3BO3, not only shields from the radiation, it helps cool the rods down. Since no permanent storage sites have been available some of these rods have been sitting in those pools for decades.


Also are you talking about W or W2C? They're different.
W is denser, but W2C is harder. W2C is more widely used than pure W. Density of DU is simmilar to W, and a lot cheaper. DU also has a low thermal coefficient of expansion which might be needed if they're going to opperate in hot conditions or conditions where temperature varies.
 
  by: TheBackwardsman   11/11/2005 08:00 AM     
  @Backwardsman  
 
From Wikipedia:
Gamma rays are a form of ionizing radiation; they are more penetrating than either alpha or beta radiation (neither of which is electromagnetic radiation), but less ionizing. They produce damage similar to that caused by X-rays, such as burns, cancer, and genetic mutations. Gamma rays from nuclear fallout would probably cause the largest number of casualties in the event of the use of nuclear weapons in a nuclear war. An effective fallout shelter reduces human exposure at least 1000 times.

Shielding for ? rays requires large amounts of mass. The material used for shielding takes into account that gamma rays are better absorbed by materials with high atomic number and high density. Also, the higher the energy of the gamma rays, the thicker the shielding required. Materials for shielding gamma rays are typically illustrated by the thickness required to reduce the intensity of the gamma rays by one half (the half value layer or HVL). For example, gamma rays that require 1 cm (0.4 inches) of lead to reduce their intensity by 50% will also have their intensity reduced in half by 6 cm (2½ inches) of concrete or 9 cm (3½ inches) of packed dirt.

[[Gamma radiation]]
 
  by: Ec5618   11/11/2005 08:12 AM     
  huh?  
 
That just says that gamma rays are EM radiation as opposed to alpha and beta particles which are particulate in nature, therefore they interact with matter differently.

Using the "best" material isn't always the best solution, which is why they use concrete and water - because it's cheaper. Does the same job just need more of it.

I think I've missed your point
 
  by: TheBackwardsman   11/11/2005 12:55 PM     
  @Backwardsman  
 
And high energy photons will penetrate water with ease, which is why lead casing are usually used, with concrete re-enforcements and why nuclear waste is stored deep underground, or far from the population and from food and water sources.

You said "Well gamma particles produced, can be shielded with 1/4 inch curtain of water."
I'm telling you that water will do little to reduce the level of radiation, and that any 'shield' still alows for some amount of radiation to pass through. A shield of water would block next to nothing.
I think you may be thinking of beta particles or alpha particles, both of which are in fact blocked by a sheet of paper. Please read up on the subject.
 
  by: Ec5618   11/11/2005 03:48 PM     
  ..  
 
1/4 inch was a misstyping, it was meant to say 4 inch, and 1/4 inch lead (These are HVL values mind you)

Did you look at those two sites?

They have HVL figures corresponding to Pb, conrete, Al, Fe, air and water.

And yes they do store nuclear waste in pools of water

Here's another article on a decommissioned Italian plants and storage of waste. 2nd Last picture.
http://www.contrasto.it/...

This one is in the US (smaller pic)
http://www.axcessnews.com/...

The US Navy uses this one
http://cryptome.org/...

This site is full of pictures and descriptions of storage pools.
http://cryptome.org/...

I'm telling you they do store nuclear waste in pools, some underground, some above ground. I've even got a picture of a gecko walking on one. Only when radioactivity levels have died down sufficiently, do they bury it.
 
  by: TheBackwardsman   11/11/2005 04:25 PM     
  @Backwardsman  
 
You may have misread: a layer of 40 centimetres would still allow 10% of the radiation to pass through. That's 15.7 inches. 4 inches of water is not enough to 'block gamma radiation'.

From Wikipedia, more relevant this time:
The spent fuel rods are usually stored in water, which provides both cooling (the spent fuel continues to generate decay heat as a result of residual radioactive decay) and shielding (to protect the environment from residual ionizing radiation).

It also absorbs neutron radiation excellently, which prevents chain reactions from forming.
Still, it provides less shielding than dirt. You'll note all those power stations use their indoor swimmingpools to store the waste. And the water is permanently contaminated, but that's neither here nor there.
 
  by: Ec5618   11/11/2005 06:01 PM     
  Ok now you've lost me  
 
I said they were HVL values IE every x amount of thickness you add will halve the intensity of the gamma radiation assuming that unit of radiation is 1MeV.

Where did you get 40cm and 10% from?

By my calculations 40 cms will reduce the intensity of 1MeV to 6.25%

40/10 = 4
(1,000,000/2^4)/(1,000,000) = .0625

If you put it like that then no amount of shielding can effectively block all gamma radiation, just reduce it to safe enough levels - the decay is logarithmic.

Other than that I think we're arguing the same point.
 
  by: TheBackwardsman   11/11/2005 07:46 PM     
  @Backwardsman  
 
According to your first source:
Tenth value layer (TVL) of lead for a gamma ray of 0.8MeV:2.6cm
TVL of water for same ray: 40cm.

I'm not sure how reliable that data is however. Also note that the HVL is in all cases dependent on the intensity of the beam. You may be aware of the concept of beam hardening.

My only real contention was that you said a layer of water of 1/4 of an inch would BLOCK gamma radiation. Even if you meant a thicker layer, I still can't accept that this constitutes a full block.
 
  by: Ec5618   11/11/2005 08:44 PM     
  Im not republican.. I'm a realist  
 
First the war in Iraq is not a war for oil. If the US was there soley for oil why have oil prices gone up?
Second this IS NOT a WMD. ENOUGH SAID!
Third, this may seem cruel but who cares of a few civilians die in the cross fire ? It doesn't effect your life or mine in any way so cry me a river and build a bridge to get over it. Lastly everyone needs to stop complaining about "how many troops we have lost" in Iraq. Last time I checked the US lost more people in 9/11 then it has during this escapade.

-PS lets take a math lesson what is the US troop kill death ratio ??? We have killed/captured a helluva lot more militants then we have lost American troops. ITS WAR EXPECT DEATH ON BOTH SIDES ffs.
 
  by: 0xdante   11/14/2005 07:11 AM     
  LOL  
 
"First the war in Iraq is not a war for oil."
Hah hah. Funny.

"If the US was there soley for oil why have oil prices gone up"
You have not read enough
 
  by: Kaleid   11/14/2005 12:45 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com