The latest liberal ploy has been to claim that the U.S. is using chemical weapons on Iraqis. Yes, well, technically the U.S. is using chemical weapons on Iraqis. I use chemical weapons to go hunting too. It’s called a rifle. In scientific terms a rifle is a projectile weapon driven by a chemical-propellant. Gunpowder is a chemical. Fortunately (or unfortunately?) the American left has not stooped to calling rifles chemical weapons. Most probably, the only thing restraining them is that they would look like fools. No, they are trickier. They are using scientific terminology and using substances that are less familiar to the average American. (btw, flaming arrows used by Amerinds were chemical weapons as well.)
They are saying that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon. Well, it’s a chemical and it’s a weapon, but it’s just as much a chemical weapon as a rifle, a flaming arrow, or burning wood stacked against a wooden fort.
White phosphorus is primarily used for smoke grenades. Wikipedia says, “Weight-for-weight, phosphorus is the most effective smoke-screening agent known.” When used, it produces a cloud of phosphoric acid as a byproduct. “The dilute phosphoric acid in the cloud may be mildly irritating to the eyes but with normal field concentrations and exposure it is not harmful; extended exposure can lead to damage of lungs and throat.”
It can also be used as an incendiary weapon. It is little different from napalm or other incendiary weapons. There is one difference, however: “Burns to persons struck by particles of burning WP are usually much less extensive than napalm or metal incendiary burns”. (There is a acid byproduct, as mentioned above, that complicates the burn very slightly.)
So, we have a simple smoke bomb or a napalm substitute and the liberals are raving (I would provide links, but the posts are so expletive laced, I don’t feel comfortable doing so. Suffice it to say that the single, largest liberal blogger was among the irrational ranters.) about the U.S. using chemical weapons on Iraq. Daily Kos said, “How can Bush claim he is now any different than Saddam?” Despicable.
*sigh*
Update: INDC Journal has more. INDC commenter “WMD Inspector” left this insightful comment:
So Saddam’s mustard gas and nerve gas weren’t “WMD’s” for purposes of “Bush Lied” / “No WMD’s in Iraq”, but a standard WP munition becomes a WMD when used by the United States military.
4 Responses
November 16th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
As a U.S. Army veteran, we were trained to use white phosphorous to destroy sensitive equipment such as radios in case of an overwhelming attack. The equipment was encased in metal several inches thick, stood a couple feet off the ground. The WP burned completely through it to the ground; that’s a lot of burning. There’s a HUGE difference between using a smoke grenade for concealment and someone walks on it, and launching numerous mortar or artillery rounds full of WP downrange, too. A grenade might burn on you; an airburst WP mortar round will burn through you and anyone else around you. You just don’t confuse the two, ever.
Also, the Pentagon admitted to using them. When after action reports come out saying that you should save the WP rounds for “lethal missions”, that means they were using them for more than screening or concealment. Using them is completely legal, too. Just because it’s legal, though, doesn’t mean it can be legally employed against enemies. Insect killer is perfectly legal for em to use, until I start spraying enemies with it in mass quantities.
While I find debates about “legal war” to be completely silly, that’s what we agreed to operate under through international agreement. I find trying to debate such things about wartime activities to be difficult at best, though. It’s easy to criticize how a soldier conducts his job after the fact and from the comfort of one’s living room. But mitigating circumstances, such as getting shot at or watching friends and co-workers get hurt by an IED as they drive a mail truck through the street, should also be considered. The terrorists in Fallujah were also the same ones who thought it would be a good morale booster by killing four U.S. security guards (the pictures are graphic; you have been warned) and displaying them as trophies on a bridge over the Euphrates River. So I can understand why extreme measures may have been used during that battle, although I don’t necessarily condone them, and wish it didn’t have to happen in the first place.
November 16th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
My main point is this: WP is not a “chemical weapon” or a WMD. WP is no different than the tried and true napalm that has been used since WWII.
November 16th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
I agree for the most part. The original article was poorly researched and written, as any Google search would prove. Poor research seems to be an affliction of laziness on “both sides of the aisle”, with vehement ranting replacing sound debate.
My main points are:
November 16th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
We agree on this topic, I believe.
I haven’t forgotten about the “Leadership” post. I will respond. I have been languishing in busyness…
Leave a Comment