Is The US Using Chemical Weapons in Iraq

This story isn't getting much play in the press but it is being reported that the US used chemical weapons during the bombardment of fall's in 2004.

White phosphorus is a spontaneously flammable chemical used in battlefield illumination. Contact with the substance results in burning and melting of skin and flesh. According to an account of a former US soldier, the phosphorus explodes and forms a plume, killing everyone within a 150 metre radius. White phosphorus bombs are considered incendiary devices, though RAI claims that they are chemical weapons.

The US military admits using white phosphorus to illuminate battlefields, but denies having used it as a weapon against civilians. The United States has ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), but has not ratified the "Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III)" (.pdf) which forbids the use of incendiary weapons against places with
concentrations of civilians.

Of course the military denies this saying the bombs were used on legitimate military targets. However, a British Commander noted that 30 MK 77 weapons were used on military targets in Iraq between March 31 and April 2, 2003.

According to a protocol that was added to the Geneva Convention in 1980, the use in incendiary weapons against civilians is banned, however the US government didn't sign that protocol. And we know what this Administration thinks of the Geneva Convention.

I'm not sure what the story is here. There is a legitimate use for MK77, but it is one thing drop to light up a desert floor and quite another to drop into the middle of a city the size of fall's.


5 Responses to Is The US Using Chemical Weapons in Iraq

  1. Cynthia Says:
    Ok, I'm glad you are talking about this. I've read this and this is reprehensible, but I'm not surprised about the double standards of America.
  2. Eddie Says:
    I agree, the U.S. is an awful place to live. I am moving to France or Syria.
  3. James Manning Says:

    I'm just asking a question. Is this something that you endorse?
  4. Jaimie Says:
    dcs made a post about your blog.
  5. bold as love Says:
    Peace on That

    Let's all be for real okay- when the bullets start flying the Geneva Convention don't mean shit. Besides every war we have been in we adhered to the Geneva Convention, with some exceptions, but nobody else did. Remember the Hanoi Hotel? Let's not even discuss what the japanese did to captured American troops. Oh, and we know how the terrorist treat captured soldiers or civilians- remember the assholes sawing the heads off of screaming hostages while shouting "alla akbar".

    Here is the deal, Iam familar with white Phosphorous, it is used mostly for illumination, but we used a shit load of it in Vietnam in the form of artillery rounds- and I agree with it's use. Dead is dead, whether it's caused by Willy Pete( military for white phosphorous) or a M16 bullet.

    If you believe that American forces just run around dropping willy pete on nieghborhoods for the hell of it you need to do some serious research of the historical and present day American Military practices. Winning wars requires that you engage the enemy and either destroy them, or their ability to wage war against you. I guarantee there have been numerous cases where we did not strike targets in Iraq because the punk-assed terroists where situated in or around Mosque,and civilians.

    Alot of our casulties in this war are a direct result of the fact that we won't drop Willy pete or other bombs on cities or towns(smart bombs are the exception)- instead we put our troops on foot and the have to go about the dangerous task of door to door urban warfare.

    So my answer is this- I endorse the use of willy pete on enemy combatants, I endorse any weapon that kills quickly and efficently our enemies.