Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Where have all the chickhawks gone......

Its official- the US did use chemical weapons in Fallujah. Isn't it strange- for the last few days since this story broke- we haven't heard a word from the chickhawks- you know those oh so voluble bird-brains who assured us Iraq had 'chemical, biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction' and were so keen to attack Iraq 9so long as they stayed a few thousand miles away from action. So come on out, you chickhawks- and explain to us what you think about the Pentagon's admission. Come on, Mr Pollard, Mr Harry's Place, Mr Hitchens (Christopher), Mr Steyn, Miss Melanie P, Mr Gove, Lady Black-Amiel, Mr Sullivan and 'Neo' Con Coughlin- we are waiting to hear from you!


U.S. used phosphorus as weapon in Iraq
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 (UPI) -- The Pentagon confirmed U.S. forces used highly caustic white phosphorus flares as weapons against Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah last year.
"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable told the BBC, but he stressed it was not used against civilians.
Venable said the Army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases."
Phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. The chemical rapidly destroys skin and muscle down to the bone on contact.
When an Italian TV documentary revealing the use of phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast Nov. 8, it sparked protests outside the U.S. Embassy in Rome.
The U.S.-led assault on Fallujah -- a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad -- displaced most of the city's population of 300,000 and destroyed many buildings

2 comments:

The Exile said...

One warmonger has addressed the issue, but in a very pedantic way. He makes the point that the weapon is actually legal because the burns are thermic and not chemical. . .

Yes, alright, stop laughing, because that is all the 'mongers have to hold onto now. Basically the agitpro war has been won by the good guys. Whatver this clown says it is not going to alter the fact that folk will watch the Italian film and not bother too much about the difference between two types of burns.

Anonymous said...

Here's the thing: chemical weapons are really not that bad. Dying of a bullet wound is certainly no less painful or inhumane than dying from nerve gas. Chemical weapons are not less discriminate killers than, say, fuel-air explosives or cluster-bomb shells.

The only issue here is of hypocrisy. The use of chemical weapons doesn't expose any terrible evil on the part of the US. The only real evil is the war itself.