Riverbend had a great post yesterday about White Phosphorus, and she has another great one today about the torture houses.
Excellent reading, both. Thanks to Janinsanfran for the heads-up.
79 thoughts on “Riverbend on WP and the torture houses”
Comments are closed.
Witnesses said many of the 169 men and youths were emaciated and looked like “Holocaust survivors”.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article327777.ece
“However, there is now a mass of accusations that government-linked death squads are killing opponents of the US occupation of Iraq and its puppet regime in Baghdad. Over the past year, the list of those assassinated include anti-occupation politicians and clerics; human rights advocates such as Margaret Hassan; journalists exposing the war crimes carried out by American and Iraqi government forces; and literally hundreds of men from areas of the country where there is popular support for the guerilla resistance movements.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/iraq-n10.shtml
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The worst mistake we make is clinging to the fantasy of civilized warfare – the ultimate oxymoron. I says it’s the worst mistake, because this is why we keep going back to war. We keep fooling ourselves into thinking we can and will go about it in some way that will not involve us in despicable acts of cruelty, and will not cause thousands or millions of innocent people to suffer horribly for no reason. There is no such way of making war. Burning or peeling the skin off of men, women and babies is not an accident or an aberration – it is the nature and essence of war.
Senators, Representatives, the day you vote to authorize a war – any war – you vote to authorize every one of the most heinous crimes you can possibly imagine, and many you can’t imagine. All will come to pass, as surely as night follows day.
John C.– you are completely right.
“The worst mistake we make is clinging to the fantasy of civilized warfare
Dear John,
My grant father died in a war during Othman Impair, my father told me he was 13 years old “born 1901” when he was running to hid under the Dates Trees fearing from the British fighters he never know ad saw them, while shoot on the civilians, my mother died in 1988 because there were a shortage of medications during Iraq/Iran war that she was taking every day for years before.
Myself I served in Iraqi military during Iraq war for 3 years and when Israelis bombed the Iraqi Research Centre 1981, also I served in Kuwait invasion the war1991. Then I decided in 1994 to leave my country that loved more than any thing ales in my life just to flee those dramas of wars and fearful wars I immigrated to the western world.
Tell me John any Americans have this level of suffering for years and for generations? Why we all in ME suffer from your “civilized warfare” savage, joules and greediness millions of ME peoples suffer because of your war and conspiracies for years now?
Are this mistakes or illusions you calling it? The reality when Americans and Britt’s understand that we are human we had our life like you and we are happy with what Allah gifted to us?
We don’t hate you we don’t dislike you we are open minded people friendly we are not fanatics we are not savage we are just human like you…..
“The vice president supports torture. He hides out in bunkers. He conspires with big oil to deceive the Congress. His chief of staff has been indicted for covering up that office’s role in outing a CIA officer to the media as political revenge. He bought sci-fi Iraq intelligence from whoever was selling. He obstructed a Senate Intelligence investigation of pre-war intelligence. And his approval ratings are such that Dems might want him to speak more and Republicans prefer he beeline for the nearest bunker. Only in Cheney’s Anbar province, Wyoming and Utah, does his approval rating break 50%, and in almost three dozen states, it’s in the twenties and thirties. Seriously, check out his numbers in solid red states such as Kansas, the Dakotas, Montana, Alaska, much less the plunge in swing states, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida. As far as I can tell, he is free advertising for the Dems. You know when citizens tell pollsters they are inclined to vote for the candidate running against the guy Bush campaigns for? Cheney has that effect, times two. I get that this is only a campaign to give some talking points and boost the dispirited morale of the extremist base, but as 2006 heats up, the Dems should pray that Cheney is out there on a nationwide tour. It is historically unique that they have in one figure the guy who represents high gas prices and quagmire in Iraq.”
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”
– Samuel P. Huntington
Salah,
You bring me to tears. Your Iraq has fought against Israel in every war since 1948, even though you do not share a border and Isreal took nothing from you. You lobbed scuds in 1991, as many as you could, aiming at civilians and refineries. Who are you fooling, is that peace loving? Maybe you are getting what you deserved, that option never crosses your mind? Why did you come to the West if we are the core of all that evil? There is plenty of peacefull places you could have gone, Syria, Morocco, Pakistan, Yemen, UAE. Some of them are pretty prosperous and you have the language and the culture. Why live tormented when you could be somewhere you like?
Your nostalgic Sunni-Shia fraternal stories are shatered by the reality we hear daily. They are beheading and peeling each others skin. Your fantastic realism goes beyond Garcia Marquez.
David
“The real enemy is neo-liberalism. The war on Iraq is part of a push to make the world safe for neo-liberalism. This war is a self-destructive cancer growing inside US neo-imperialism. Just as the Civil War rescued Abraham Lincoln from the fate of an immoral segregationist politician and projected him in history as a liberator of slaves”
The war that may end the age of superpower
Salah, thank you for your story. I’m not sure you understood my point, but I understood yours. Some day when David grows up, he may understand it too.
To answer your question, yes – mistakes and illusions.
I am very fond of your writing John, and at least half of the time I share your perspective. I regret you think I need to grow up, is defending my people and my country against the acts and ideologies of a sea of Salah’s immature to you?
David
Thank you David. So much depends on the particular words we use to express ourselves. It’s too bad, really, because words are such treacherous and inadequate symbols. What strikes me about your words is the apparent lack of empathy, which I associate with immaturity. Of course, your way of posting comments on the internet may reveal little or nothing of your true character. Which is why we should avoid personal attacks on each another in this most impersonal medium. I apologize for straying over that line.
Thanks John C.
May today there be peace within.
May you trust God that you are exactly where you are meant to be.
May you not forget the infinite possibilities that are born of faith.
May you use those gifts that you have received, and pass on the love that has been given to you.
May you be content knowing you are a child of God.
Let this presence settle into our bones, and allow your soul the freedom to sing, dance, praise and love.
It is there for each and every one of you.
According to todays article in the New York Times, the film that Riverbend saw was quite inaccurate and very propagandistic. White phosphorus was used and was not a secret. It was used against military targets and the US is saying that this is not classified as a chemical weapon. I don’t know what the classification is. Napalm is nasty and isn’t classified as a chemical weapon.
The bodies that are so horrible in the film are, according to the NYT article, bodies that were not burned by white phosphorus, but were killed in some other manner, then decayed.
I’ve read a few of the Riverbend articles and they are all more literary than analytical, more poetic than factual. There is sin and crime in Iraq these days, but this quote by Riverbend is a stupid slander and discredits everything she says:
There is a difference between reporting the facts and giving an opinion, and there is a difference between opinionating and propagandistic lies. Riverbend is ignorant of these distinctions. I really do blame her teachers.
We should all be wary of films. I once cried in a movie when a dog hurt his paw. I think the film was “Benji”. The next week I saw a James Bond film where dozens of bad guys died on the spot and I shed no tear. Films manipulate emotions as they convince us because “Photos don’t lie”. Filmmakers do.
If the head-choppers and mosque-bombers of the insurgency gain control of Iraq, the mass murder and devastation will make the current situation look like a tea party. This must not be allowed to happen.
There is only one peaceful solution to the current Iraq situation: the insurgence must make a political compromise with the Iraqi constitutional government and join in a fair power-sharing agreement under the rule of law.
Baqer Solagh Jabor, also known as Bayan Jabr,
Some quote by Iraqi interior Minister Bayan Jabr
interior minister has defended a government facility that was found to be holding dozens of prisoners, including some showing signs of torture, saying it held “the most criminal terrorists.”
”Nobody was beheaded or killed,” a defiant Bayan Jabr told a news conference Thursday, saying that only seven of 170 detainees showed marks of torture.
”Those detainees, those criminal killers inside the bunker were not Indians or Pakistanis or Iranians,” he said, waving a stack of passports in the air. “Those are your Arab brothers that came here to kill your sons.”
Interior Minister Bayn Jabr suggested some making the torture allegations were supporting the insurgency or had a personal score to settle and were using the U.S. Embassy to exert pressure on him.
On Thursday, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr , a Shiite who directs roughly 100,000 police and special police officers, denied the allegations of widespread torture at the secret prison and broader allegations of Shiite militia and Iranian involvement in the ministry’s forces.` Jabr said a U.S. general who discovered the underground prison had told him of finding five or six victims of beatings or other abuses. Allegations of more widespread mistreatment at the center, Jabr insisted, were “untrue and inaccurate.” ”I reject torture, and anyone found guilty of that will be punished,” he said.
”These are the most criminal terrorists who were in these cells,” Jabr said . He said he personally instructed that these particular suspects be taken to the detention center in Jadiriyah because they were considered the most dangerous.
The 12,000 figure over 18 months would equal about 8000 deaths a year or 22 per day. … The Baath Party was in power for about 35 years. If it had killed 8000 civilians per year, that would be 280,000 persons. That is about what is alleged. …In other words, rule. Bayan Jabr’s figures suggest that in US-dominated Iraq, people are dying so far at about the same rate as they did under Baath
On Sunday, Iraq’s Interior Minister Bayan al-Jabr dismissed the Saudi foreign minister’s contention that the power of Iraqi Shiites had grown so much that the country was now dominated by Iran.
Jabr said the Saudi rulers were “tyrants” who discriminated against their own Shiite minority. Referring to Prince Saud, Jabr added: “Iraq is the cradle of civilization, which taught humanity reading and writing, and now a bedouin, riding a camel, wants to teach us.”
Iraqi Constitution
CHAPTER TWO – FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Article 12.
All Iraqis are equal in their rights without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, or origin, and they are equal before the law. Discrimination against an Iraqi citizen on the basis of his gender, nationality, religion, or origin is prohibited. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his life or liberty, except in accordance with legal procedures. All are equal before the courts.
Article 14.
The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security. The Iraqi State and its governmental units, including the federal government, the regions, governorates, municipalities, and local administrations, within the limits of their resources and with due regard to other vital needs, shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.
Article 15.
© No one may be unlawfully arrested or detained, and no one may be detained by reason of political or religious beliefs.
(D) All persons shall be guaranteed the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, regardless of whether the proceeding is civil or criminal. Notice of the proceeding and its legal basis must be provided to the accused without delay.
(E) The accused is innocent until proven guilty pursuant to law, and he likewise has the right to engage independent and competent counsel, to remain silent in response to questions addressed to him with no compulsion to testify for any reason, to participate in preparing his defense, and to summon and examine witnesses or to ask the judge to do so. At the time a person is arrested, he must be notified of these rights.
(J) Torture in all its forms, physical or mental, shall be prohibited under all circumstances, as shall be cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. No confession made under compulsion, torture, or threat thereof shall be relied upon or admitted into evidence for any reason in any proceeding, whether criminal or otherwise.
There is great difficulty in tracking down exactly who is doing what to whom in the fog of war in Iraq. This generally anti-war article in the NY Times points up the difficulty of identifying those roving bands of criminals who may be wearing stolen uniforms.
Riverbend has no trouble substituting her “thoughts” for fact:
Yes, it’s a real thought but it glosses over the real problem of identity. And it glosses over the real efforts the US is making to stop the abuses. The raid on the torture prison was a great and moral step and deserves praise. Instead Riverbend invents a story about “Diversion” with no evidence whatsoever at all. Further, she manages to blame the crimes of the Sadr organization on the US. Not exactly.
Riverbend has more hate for the US than she has love of truth.
With the new constitution, there is chance of stopping the crimes against the people. Under Saddam, there was only a temporary respite as Saddam reacted to the gun placed against his head.
The Sunni’s in Iraq deserve a place at the table, but they are insisting on owning the whole table, and the chairs. How could any peace-loving people support them?
I would have thought it was obvious that Riverbend was expressing her own personal view of things, and is not to be thought the fount of all wisdom.
WarrenW appears not have seen the RAI film, though you can download it. I have seen it, and I can tell you that those people did not die from simple gunshot wounds, or explosions. The flesh is burnt away, exactly as described for WP, and there are quite a lot of them like that.
As WarrenW doesn’t understand, WP provokes particular horror, because of the way it kills. Even if it were theoretically legal (and is not on civilian populations, as it was used in Falluja -there were bound to be civilian populations there), the result is going to provoke more hatred than the problem it supposedly resolves.
Wait, I’m missing something here. How does objecting to the use of chemical weapons and their effects mean that someone hates the U.S.? I’ve read Riverbend’s blog for many months, and never felt that she hated the U.S. I still don’t.
Also, and more important, why is it OK for the U.S. to use chemical weapons? Somehow I missed that, too, in the dialogue above.
Eagerly awaiting any cogent answer.
As this article over at Tech Central Station makes clear, White Phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. It is a legal incendiary weapon.
I have not yet had the opportunity to view the film, but numerous analysts including John Pike have noticed that the bodied that are supposedly “Burned” in the film are in clothing that is not burned, which is impossible. The logical conclusion is that the bodies decomposed after dying some other way. It takes a professional autopsy to tell the difference between damage that occurs after death and the damage that causes death. That’s why there are pathologists and medical examiners. Movies just aren’t adequate.
If you are going to complain that civilians were hit by WP or any other weapon in Falujah or any other part of Iraq you must also insist that the insurgents start wearing uniforms, to enable the gunners and artillery spotters to tell the difference.
WarrenW,
The US didn’t break the Geneva conventions when using chemical weapons, because she never signed that addendum to the convention. But that already says it all on the US ethic of war.
Can you tell us more about that Tech Central Station and who is behind it ? The RAI footage which I saw is a serious news report made by professional. It is absolutely credible. Had you seen it, you’d know from interview with weapons specialist that the fact the bodies burned without the cloths is the signature of white phosphorus.
If the US army was so clean in its assault against Falludjah, then tell me, why they didn’t want to let the ICRC inside of Falludjah for such a long time ? Plus that footage of the Italians only confirms what was already said elesewhere much earlier. The first pictures sent to the web were those of Dahr Jamail. Then there were the saying of Iraqi physicians in hospitals.
Those who don’t want to hear don’t. Apparently you are one of those.
The fact that the US didn’t sign the Geneva convention addendum doesn’t make a difference concerning her low ethic standards.
For the bloke who thinks that people who are not in uniform are fair game, let’s not forget that the US troops would not let the men leave Falluja before they attacked it with all these disgusting concoctions of theirs.
This action was terrorism. The US people like to play with words. Their official definition of terrorism says nothing about deliberately creating fear through atrocities. That’s because they are the main culprits.
”Riverbend has more hate for the US than she has love of truth.”
WW, if you had a statistics now tell us how many Iraqi inside Iraq now do love Americans?
Look folks, I’m not claiming those dead people are alive. I’m saying that WP is not classified as a chemical weapon.
I don’t know who is “Behind” that TCS article any more than I know who is “Behind” JWN.
Christiane’s only interesting statement is that “bodies burned without the cloths is the signature of white phosphorus”. I doubt this. Phosphorus combines with oxygen and releases heat. Phosphorus can be toxic over time but this is not a battlefield phenomena — it takes time. Just as gasoline would burn clothing, so would white phosphorus. Gasoline could be toxic if you drink it but that doesn’t make it a chemical weapon.
If you google for “White Phosphorus” you’ll discover that it is a nasty incendiary weapon and can be toxic over time. It is also used very widely in industry, agriculture and consumer products, in a chemically combined (stable) form. Once burned, phosphorus probably becomes fertilizer eventually, but I haven’t found any citations to that effect.
You mention the “addendum to the Geneva convention”. There is a lot of text in all those conventions, I don’t want to read all of it now. Can you provide a more precise citation or a web link? And tell me who did sign those special conventions that, apparently, did outlaw WP?
War is indeed a terrible thing, and the insurgents in Iraq should stop insisting on taking over the whole country and extending the war. They should form a compromise government and stop the war. The war against the Saddam government would be long over if it were not for the insistance of the Return party and the Al Queda people on running the whole country for themselves.
I don’t believe that you are concerned about white phosphorus or about civilians, because if you were you’d be more concerned about the mosque-bombers, wedding-bombers and head-choppers trying to tyrranize Iraq.
WarrenW-
Here is a short reasoning test:
1. Is white phosphorus a chemical?
2. Did the U.S. military use white phosphorus as a weapon?
3. Did the U.S. military use a chemical weapon?
“I’m saying that WP is not classified as a chemical weapon.”
Really, Warren? Gee, that’s funny, because it was classified by the Pentagon as a chemical weapon in 1991 when they believed Saddam was using it against Kurdish fighters:
“IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]
IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.”
From a 1991 Pentagon document declassified in 1995.
Of course, when Saddam used WP against insurgents (in the real sense of the word) in 1991, it was unquestionably a chemical weapon, making its use clearly an atrocity. When the Americans use it in 2003-2005 – against people, by their own admission, and in a way that affected civilians, by the clear evidence – it is no longer an atrocity committed with a chemical weapon, but a perfectly legitimate use of a perfectly legitimate weapon.
Give us a break!
WW,
War is indeed a terrible thing, and the insurgents in Iraq should stop insisting on taking over the whole country and extending the war. They should form a compromise government and stop the war.
Please WW read this
The right to rule ourselves
Faced with US torture, killing and collective punishment of civilians, support for the Iraqi resistance is growing
Haifa Zangana
Saturday November 19, 2005
The Guardian
Shirin,
you are right, read this
A DUTCH businessman went on trial on genocide charges in The Hague yesterday, facing accusations that he sold chemicals to Iraq in the knowledge that the Saddam Hussein regime would use them to murder thousands of people.
So who should be arrested with the case of using WP US admitted using it in Iraq also Tony Blair admitted Britt’s used it also….
“who should be arrested with the case of using WP US admitted using it in Iraq also Tony Blair admitted Britt’s used it also….”
Ya akhi Salah! This is the part you need to understand: When Saddam uses WP it is a chemical weapon and its use in his hands is always an atrocity. However, when the U.S. or the U.K. use WP it is NOT a chemical weapon, and its use is legitimate and reasonable and perfectly OK, even when they use it against people, and even when they kill women, children, babies and old people with it.
It is very simple:
WP used by Saddam: Very bad chemical weapon.
WP used by US and UK: Perfectly acceptable non-chemical weapon.
Get it now, yakhi? 😉
“British-trained police operating in Basra have tortured at least two civilians to death with electric drills, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
John Reid,, the Secretary of State for Defence, admits that he knows of “alleged deaths in custody” and other “serious prisoner abuse” at al-Jamiyat police station, which was reopened by Britain after the war.”
MORE TO COME……..
WW, this is more info may confessing you that Riverband write its not here hate to US, its clear those all from western sources all of them agreed WP used and its mostly classified as “Chemicals”.
In same taken we can say US news reflected the hate for Iraqis when reporteing about Iraq.
Your argument it’s far from the reality and inline with US administration keep giving you excuses for the war in Iraq.
The human life. its more valuable than you argue is if WP “chemicals” or not, in the end there is a crimes of mass murders and big human loss.
If US and the world stand up for 9/11 crimes with 3890 innocents killed what’s the difference then using WP on the city with civilians in their homes on their land, They are in WROG PLACE & IN WRONG TIME, isn’t WW?
This war its adistraction of A STATE OF IRAQ, its to “Destroy Babylon completely. Judge Mount Seir and Edom. Cause all the nations to know that it is God who brought Israel back. Ezek. 36:36; 38-39.”
So who are behind all this war and these ugly hatful claims?
““RAI News 24′s investigative story, Fallujah, The Concealed Massacre, will be broadcast tomorrow on RAI-3 and will contain not only eye-witness accounts by US military personnel but those from Fallujah residents. A rain of fire descended on the city. People who were exposed to those multicolored substance began to burn. We found people with bizarre wounds-their bodies burned but their clothes intact, relates Mohamad Tareq al-Deraji, a biologist and Fallujah resident.”
Did the US military use chemical weapons in Iraq?
“Fallujah has been pretty much destroyed, its 300,000 residents displaced and in despair. The bodies of many of their loved ones are charred beyond recognition with chemical weapons. These people want us to leave their country.”
Here is another byproduct of US actions in Iraq:
It is a fairly well known fact that about 20% of US soldiers who return from missions in Iraq cannot be reintegrated into society. This was true in Vietnam and has not much changed.
When deployments return, the abuse at military bases rises dramatically. This means battered wives and children, rapes and murders. Much of this happens on bases that are self-contained units. The incidents are kept quiet, and very often the surrounding community goes along with economically.
Do you really think that some CIA type or worse, uneducated and unworldly soldiers who think they are on a mission from god, and spend their days torturing and doing “shake and bake” and looking at burned children and seeing terrorists can ever act like normal husbands and fathers again?
No. Like Warren and David, they will spend their time in gyrations of justification.
Excuse me been off topic,
Big oil has crude designs on Iraq wealth-report
Salah’s link doesn’t work for all; Here is a link to another media who published the original Reuter’s wire
Clarifation on the “Pentagon document” posted by Shirin. This appears to be a summary of what was reported by the source (apparently a Kurd or other Iraqi) of what his brother told him in a phone conversation. It is pretty clear that the classification of what constitutes a “chemical weapon” (as well as the speculation as to Saddam Hussein’s motives and frame of mind) is that of the source and/or his brother and not of the Pentagon. This is raw information, not an analysis of the situation.
JES, your (blatantly self-serving) interpretation is not supported by the document, or by reality. That Pentagon document is not written by, nor is it directly quoting, the source. It is written by, and uses the language of, U.S. military intelligence. The term “WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS” is the language of the U.S. military intelligence. If it were not, “chemical weapons” would have been placed in quotes to indicate that it is the language used by the source.
But do explain, if you can, JES, how you can possibly classify white posphorus as anything but a chemical weapon given the fact that its effect on living tissue is clearly a chemical one.
Yes Shririn, you’re absolutely correct. White phosphorous is a weapon made of chemicals, just as are TNT and gunpowder.
BTW, I don’t think that it is my interpretation that is “self-serving”. But, whatever.
Just for the record, this is the warning from the Pentagon report’s header:
WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED
INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED
Well, JES, that was indeed a transparent and not very adept attempt to sidestep my point, which had nothing to do with what white phosphorus is made of, but rather what it DOES.
To use your example, yes, indeed TNT and gunpowder are made of chemicals, and so is white phosphorus. However, that is where the resemblance ends. TNT and gunpowder are used as explosives. Their action and their purpose is to blow things up. White phosphorus, on the other hand, is an effective weapon against people because it reacts chemically when it comes into contact with living tissue.
Now, JES, would you care to clarify how it is that white phosphorus is NOT a chemical weapon, given that it is used as a weapon against people precisely because of its chemical reaction to contact with living tissue?
JES, that warning you copied from the report means only that the information itself has not been evaluated. In other words, it is not certain whether the report is accurate that the Iraqi government used white phosphorus chemical weapons. It has nothing whatsoever to do, however, with the fact that military intelligence referred to white phosphorus as a chemical weapon.
John C. and Kassandra and Shirin
First, about that syllogism:
Water is a chemical. Napalm and gasoline are made of chemicals. The black powder that drives bullets and artillery shells are chemicals. The explosives in bombs are chemicals. None of these things, however, are classed as “Chemical weapons” under international treaties. Even though water may drown you and bullets may kill you. You could hit somebody over the head with a block of ice — but that would not make water a chemical weapon. Ice is a crystalized form of a chemical, dihydrogen monoxide, also known as water. WP and napalm are incendiaries, not poisons.
Chemical weapons are those which kill by bio-toxicity, including mustard gas, phosgene, Sarin, chlorine gas, VX and so forth.
The Federation of American Scientists has an informative page here that I recommend you read.
This Wikipedia article is very good and very clear. I also recommend it. It is clear that White Phosphorus is not classed as a “Chemical weapon”, even though it is a chemical.
Kassandra
All the personal problems you describe should happen to the people who chop the heads off of prisoners. They do not, of course, happen to suicide bombers. Why do you, Kassandra, take the time to point out family problems of US servicemen but ignore the problems of the head-choppers, mosque-bombers and such of the Iraqi insurgency? Also, do you have any actual evidence of this anti-social behavior or are you making it all up?
Shirin
If I call a tail a leg does a sheep have 5 legs? The answer is no, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.
It may be that somebody who works for the US Defense Department or who was quoted by the Defense Department referred to WP as a “Chemical weapon.” Not every fact in every memo is right!
The fact is that common usage and international treaties do not define WP as a chemical weapon. If a Defense Department memo referred to Argentina as the 51st state of the US would you believe it?
—
This is the whole problem with the left and the “Anti-war” movement. You can’t trust them. Either they don’t know the truth or they don’t care. Really, it’s disgusting. You people could have been more careful and more truthful. Try to do better in the future.
You Warren are turning cartwheels trying to justify criminal acts. And justifying America’s actions by the fact that some heads got chopped, you are bringing yourself down to exactly the same level as those head choppers. Why is it so terrible to chop a head, but not at all terrible to bomb and burn women and children?
Re what goes on at US bases, the inf comes from military social workers and counselors. Did you also know that there are more children with birth defects born in military hospitals than in neighboring civilian ones?
Try looking at some US murder and child abuse statistics if you are in doubt about the sanity of your great “democratic” country.
WarrenW: maybe you should read the wiki news entry:
WarrenW, regarding that John Burns NYT article you linked, Burns has been a prowar cheerleader all along. And the article you linked is a classic example of the NYT style of “liberalism”–the reports of torture and death squad activity by the Iraqi government have been around for about a year and the fact that the US government is only now pretending to be shocked by it suggests that they’ve changed policies from supporting death squads as a way of crushing the insurgency to turning against those same death squads because they realize the policy is only fanning the flames. But Burns, absurdly, starts trotting out the usual NYT cliches about “innocent” Americans with their belief in reason and democracy being unable to contend with the duplicity and savagery of the Iraqis. You’d think Abu Ghraib never happened.
As for white phosphorus in Fallujah, the NYT sat on the story for days. They can’t admit there’s anything to it now, because they look like they’ve been covering for the US government. The bloggers and the Italians did all the investigating on this story. So the NYT comes along and does their best to trivialize the story, portraying it as solely a PR problem.
Their point about bodies and unburnt clothes might be correct, for all I know. The bigger point is that the US government was using incendiaries in an urban setting–they clearly didn’t care who might get hurt.
WarrenW, regarding that John Burns NYT article you linked, Burns has been a prowar cheerleader all along. And the article you linked is a classic example of the NYT style of “liberalism”–the reports of torture and death squad activity by the Iraqi government have been around for about a year and the fact that the US government is only now pretending to be shocked by it suggests that they’ve changed policies from supporting death squads as a way of crushing the insurgency to turning against those same death squads because they realize the policy is only fanning the flames. But Burns, absurdly, starts trotting out the usual NYT cliches about “innocent” Americans with their belief in reason and democracy being unable to contend with the duplicity and savagery of the Iraqis. You’d think Abu Ghraib never happened.
As for white phosphorus in Fallujah, the NYT sat on the story for days. They can’t admit there’s anything to it now, because they look like they’ve been covering for the US government. The bloggers and the Italians did all the investigating on this story. So the NYT comes along and does their best to trivialize the story, portraying it as solely a PR problem.
Their point about bodies and unburnt clothes might be correct, for all I know. The bigger point is that the US government was using incendiaries in an urban setting–they clearly didn’t care who might get hurt.
WarrenW, regarding that John Burns NYT article you linked, Burns has been a prowar cheerleader all along. And the article you linked is a classic example of the NYT style of “liberalism”
Ad hominem. What did John Burns and the NYT actually say that was incorrect?
Hey Kassandra, why do you mix me up on this one, I know little about the WP facts or details and I expressed no opinion so far.
David
Dutchmarbel
The CWC includes a long list of known chemical weapons in its schedules 1, 2, 3, available on the wikipedia. None of these 3 lists of chemical weapons includes white phosphorus or napalm. These weapons are over 50 years old and are known to everybody, especially napalm. If either had been classified as a chemical weapon then they would be on one of these 3 lists. The lists include actual chemical weapons and even precursors that have no battlefield use.
Donald J
The NY Times may not be as great a paper as they would like to think. I’ve seen them run editorials on the front page. But they have a lot of reporters and have been reliable in the past.
I haven’t seen any evidence that the US targeted WP at civilians or that the US “Didn’t care who gets hurt”. The US did not go into battle in Fallujah when it first wanted to, the US waited until the civilian population had diminished. Then the US did go into battle in Fallujah, knowing that some “Civilian” casualties were inevitable. I quote the word “Civilian” because the insurgent soldiers don’t wear uniforms and deliberately hide among non-combatants as a technique of war.
All the quoted witnesses to the battle of Fallujah indicate that the WP was used against active combatants. The bodies in the film are clearly not “Burned” since the clothing was not burned, and WP is a heat weapon.
The “Left” has brought up the issue of WP in combat as if it were against international treaties or a war crime. Now we see that reality is setting in. If you read the “Wikipedia news” article referenced above you’ll see they admit that the treaties do not ban WP.
The entire alliance of what used to be the “Left” and Islamofascism will probably come to an end as bad as the original Hitler-Stalin pact.
The only reason for the existence of the war is the insurgency, which wishes to destroy the new constitutional government. The “Left” has signed on to support fascism and destroy democracy. It’s time for the insurgency and their supporters to set the date for an end to the insurgency and the creation of a compromise government.
Shirin
“…chemical reaction to contact with living tissue..”
If phosphorus is used so that the phosphorus reacts chemically with living tissue it might be a chemical weapon according to the treaties. Although the treaty texts I’ve seen specify “Intentional” use of “Toxic” chemicals. The hot flame of napalm burns flesh in a way similar to the reaction of phosphorus with flesh, so that would lean toward classifying even this use of WP as a conventional weapon.
There is a borderline somewhere between chemical and conventional weapons. Clearly the neuro-toxins are chemical weapons, so is chlorine gas. To find out where WP lies we would have to study the treaties or other agreements or perhaps UN definitions.
The descriptions of the “Shake and bake” operations in Fallujah are of incendiary weapons.
If phosphorus is used to generate heat and create burns and smoke then it is clearly not a chemical weapon according to the treaties I’ve seen.
The insurgency clearly does not represent the majority of the Iraqi people. The article by Haifa Zangana is an emotional mish-mash of misleading statements; “… sprinkling Iraqis with white phosphorus and depleted uranium.” Neither WP nor DU is ever “Sprinkled”. There is a war going on in Iraq, and Zananga wants to make it sound shocking that Iraqis are dying. Many of the insurgents are Iraqis — the Sunnis and such of the Return Party.
The line about sprinkling White Phosphorus and Depleted Uranium reminds me of the petition that went around trying to get people to sign up against the use of “Dihydrogen monoxide”. A scary sounding chemical until you realize it’s just water.
The Zananga article is similarly empty and dishonest. It starts with the title “The right to rule ourselves”. That’s exactly what the insurgency is trying to destroy. They even admit it. They issue statements against the very idea of democracy.
With a little googling you can find the UN report on Depleted Uranium and see for yourself that it is only “Toxic” if you go to the battlefield and start eating the soil. And you have to eat a bunch of it, a nibble won’t do. HZ probably knows this and doesn’t care. That’s one of the things that’s so disgusting about the so-called “Left”.
I’m in the process of downloading that propaganda movie that Riverbend wrote up and I do not look forward to spending a half hour watching it and another hour analyzing it. I might watch it, I might not. The last time I downloaded a propaganda film recommended by JWN it was complete crap.
Sorry, Warren and JES, I’ve read this thread looking for the “cogent” answer I asked earlier, and all the discussion so far about how WP is not classified as a chemical weapon strikes me as casuistry.
Let me rephrase my question: why is it OK for the U.S. to use incendiary devices in a civilian area? I thought it was that sort of thing we invaded Iraq to prevent.
WarrenW,
That movie linked by Riverbend is a professional movie made by cameramen and reporters of the RAI UNO. In case you don’t know, RAI UNO is an official news channel in ITaly and one which is often very partial to the government, in this case to Berlusconi. If the cameramen weren’t serious they would be ousted. Don’t try to smear the messenger because you don’t like the news.
As for comparing water and napalm and telling all are chemical.. please, don’t take us for dumber than we are. Just answer the question of Vivion.
“If phosphorus is used so that the phosphorus reacts chemically with living tissue it might be a chemical weapon according to the treaties.”
The U.S. military – after lying about it in several iterations – has admitted that it has used WP against people in Iraq, specifically in Falluja. WP is an effective weapon against people (and animals) because it reacts chemically when it comes into contact with living tissue.
On a side note, one cannot help wondering why the U.S. military was so careful to lie about using WP against people if it really considers its use legal and legitimate.
Good remark Shirin. One also wonder why they banned every relief organization, including the ICRC delegates, out of the city for several weeks after the attacks. Now we know what they wanted to hide.
…why is it OK for the U.S. to use incendiary devices in a civilian area?
With all due respect, I think that your question is rhetorical. If I may answer with my own rhetorical question: Was it a “civilian area” if it was under the control of armed combatants who had stockpiled weapons and explosives among the civilians, were using these to attack both military and civilians, and most likely used the months during which the US openly refrained from taking the city to fortify their positions?
No matter how either of us answers the respective questions, neither is likely to change the other’s mind. I believe that what happened in Halabja, for example, was different both in degree, and in kind, from anything the US military is alleged to have done in Fallujah. You, on the other hand, seem to be implying that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein that it is today. At least I have trouble coming to any other conclusion from your arguments. (Please feel free to demonstrate to me how this is incorrect.) In fact, I would say that the arguments that have been presented here asserting that the white phosphorous used in Fallujah is equivalent to chemical warfare are, in effect, casuistry and an attempt to rationalize that position.
That movie linked by Riverbend is a professional movie made by cameramen and reporters of the RAI UNO. In case you don’t know, RAI UNO is an official news channel in ITaly and one which is often very partial to the government, in this case to Berlusconi. If the cameramen weren’t serious they would be ousted.
I viewed that movie and, in my opinion, it was outright sensationalist journalism and propaganda that used every trick in the book – from irrelevant and purposely emotive scenes, to unsupported assertions, to outright sleight of hand. I think that the RAI producers were aiming this movie at the gullible and those who have already made up their minds.
“The U.S. military – after lying about it in several iterations – has admitted that it has used WP against people in Iraq, specifically in Falluja. WP is an effective weapon against people (and animals) because it reacts chemically when it comes into contact with living tissue.”
This is one of the rare occasions I find myself in agreement with Shirin. Whether incendiary or chemical, WP kills indiscriminately and its use should not be defended.
“I believe that what happened in Halabja, for example, was different both in degree, and in kind, from anything the US military is alleged to have done in Fallujah.”
Absolutely correct. Both WP and VX gas are chemical weapons, but VX is several orders of magnitude more lethal and indiscriminate. The Abu Ghraib scandal is a horrible disgrace for the US, but its history under Hussein was many many times worse. 4000 prisoners were killed there in 1984 alone. Sure, “Better than Saddam Hussein” is a shabby benchmark, but the JWN ommunity sometimes acts as if even that low standard of decency hasnt been vastly exceeded.
““Better than Saddam Hussein” is a shabby benchmark, but the JWN ommunity sometimes acts as if even that low standard of decency hasnt been vastly exceeded.”
What the “JWN community” acts as if is irrelevant. What is relevant is that by virtually every measurable parameter the post-“liberation” situation is far worse than it was under Saddam Hussein. What is even more relevant is the fact that more and more Iraqis are looking back at life under Saddam Hussein as the “good old days”. At least then there was some semblance of normalcy for the vast majority of Iraqis. Now even that semblance of normalcy is gone, and living conditions are vastly worse.
But then who cares what Iraqis think about their own lives? We all know they are not nearly as qualified to evaluate their own situation as the average war cheerleader who has never set foot in Iraq, and probably could not locate it on an unlabeled map.
Frankly, reading the comments of WarrenW, JES, VADIM et al. is really depressing. So now Bush supporters measure the value of their deeds to those of Saddam Hussein ? Is that the only scale allowing you to sustain the comparison ?
Happily, two days ago, I stumbled on the recent letter of Jimmy Carter. After all, there are perhaps still some good and reasonable persons sharing the same values as us across the Atlantic.
Don’t miss the reading it is a great piece. Here is the beginning :
In recent years, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.
These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights.
Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with truthful information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect, state and local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.
So now Bush supporters measure the value of their deeds to those of Saddam Hussein ? Is that the only scale allowing you to sustain the comparison ?
Christiane, didn’t I expressly state that it was a low standard to meet? And no, they also compare favorably with the deeds of the United Nations, which as you’ll recall was responsible for sanctions costing the lives of 500,000 Iraqis (or roughly five times the most extravagant estimate of war dead.)
“the average war cheerleader who has never set foot in Iraq”
How do they compare to the average blame-America-for-everything type who has never set foot in Iraq [or america!]? I’m not sure how having set foot in Iraq is germane, especially insofar as Helena herself has never to my knowledge set foot in Iraq nor have 99% of her commenters.
I wonder too whether those of Iraqi heritage who currently reside in the US or Europe are especially qualified to comment on the feelings of “the average Iraqi.” You have no evidence that the average Iraqi is nostalgic for Hussein’s regime. I could direct you to a great many polls suggesting otherwise.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
Here’s one, a poll whose results are generally unflattering to the US and the occupation. Yet it “shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak.”
“So now Bush supporters measure the value of their deeds to those of Saddam Hussein ?”
The real problem, Christiane, is that by all measurable and most non-measurable criteria, and in the opinion of many if not most Iraqis, Saddam Hussein comes out looking better.
“they also compare favorably with the deeds of the United Nations, which as you’ll recall was responsible for sanctions costing the lives of 500,000 Iraqis (or roughly five times the most extravagant estimate of war dead.)”
1. They most certainly do NOT compare favourably to Saddam Hussein. Iraqis are materially far, far worse off now than they were at the very worst periods of Saddam’s regime. They are also far worse off in terms of personal safety and security, and this is particularly true of women. They are under far, far more jeopardy from far, far more and greater threats to their persons, liberties, lives, limbs, and peace of mind. In addition to the most deadly threat – the occupation forces – the murder-and-kidnap-for-hire rings, the “insurgents”, and the roaming bands of common criminals, one of the greatest threats, particularly to women and non-Muslim minorities is the increased power of religious extremists, both Sunni and Shi`a. Iraqis have a great deal less freedom of movement than they have ever had, less and poorer access to the basic necessities such as food, water, and medical care. Unemployment is higher than it has ever been in Iraq’s history, fewer children are attending school, more and more women are forced to resort to prostitution to survive (exporting of Iraqi teenaged girls, and young women for prostitution has become big business since “liberation”), and a whole generation of children is suffering unrelenting traumas that will leave them with permenent emotional scars – not to mention, of course, those who are physically maimed for life. All these things and more are results of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.
2. Nor do conditions today compare favourably with conditions under the sanctions. In fact, conditions have deteriorated steadily since the invasion, and are much worse than they were under sanctions by almost any measure.
3. It is important to note that the U.S. bears most of the responsibility for the horrific effects of the sanctions. The U.N. originally imposed economic sanctions as an alternative to armed force to end the occupation of Kuwait. They were intended as a short term measure. After Iraq withdrew from Kuwait the sanctions became very much the U.S.’s “baby”, and by no means would they have been as crushingly comprehensive, or gone on so long except at the insistance of the U.S. The U.S. not only continually tightened the sanctions, and not only was responsible for the overwhelming majority of holds and denials of critical imports, every time Iraq met a requirement, the U.S. created a kafkaesque situation in which the Iraqi government had no hope of ever bringing the sanctions to an end. The U.S. government insisted upon constantly raising the bar for compliance, eventually the U.S. making it explicity clear that no matter what Iraq did the sanctions would not be lifted as long as Saddam remained in power. In addition to all this, the U.S. illegally used the inspection regime to further its own ends by infiltrating the group of inspectors with its own spies, and used provocations to create excuses to take military and other actions against Iraq. In other words, the U.S., far more than the U.N. is responsible for the sanctions and their effects.
“I wonder too whether those of Iraqi heritage who currently reside in the US or Europe are especially qualified to comment on the feelings of “the average Iraqi.””
I am unaware of such persons commenting on the feelings of “the average Iraqi”. However, you surely are not suggesting that Iraqis living in the US or Europe are not better in touch with what life in Iraq was like before and is like now than the average war cheer leader who gets his news from Fox and CNN. After all, we have a few small advantages. We know Iraq and Iraqis up close and personal and can tell when something does or does not make sense. When we hear something about a place, a city, a town, a village, or a neighborhood, we know something about that place and its people. If we want more information about something we can talk to a friend or family member in Iraq. We are in regular – some of us daily – contact with Iraqis who are in Iraq and who have been there recently. We are able to see – and understand – satellite broadcasts from Iraq and other countries in the world, and we are able to read the Iraqi and other Arabic press amd have a basis of real knowledge and experience to evaluate what we read and see and hear.
But, Vadim, if you want to believe that you can sit half a world away and get all the information you need from Fox News, CNN, and by reading carefully selected Iraqi and “Iraqi” blogs, who are we to argue with you?
“You have no evidence that the average Iraqi is nostalgic for Hussein’s regime.”
Really, Vadim, if you cannot argue against what I have actually said you are better off just staying silent rather than distorting or misrepresenting my statements. I have said, or implied, nothing at all about the average Iraqi, nor did I say anything about nostalgia.
“I could direct you to a great many polls suggesting otherwise.”
On the contrary, the polls support what I said very well. They do indeed show an increase in the number of Iraqis who are unhappy with “liberation”. So does the increasing flood of Iraqis who are leaving the country and taking up residence elsewhere.
“In other words, the U.S., far more than the U.N. is responsible for the sanctions and their effects.”
Saddam Hussein is responsible for the sanctions and their effects. The UN, not the United States was responsible for implementing the sanctions, in answer to many Iraqi violations of UNSC resolutions and the terms of the 1991 cease fire. An entire staff at the UN was given over to their administration and that of the oil-for-food program.
Since you seem to think the UNSC is a puppet of the US government, I wonder why a UNSC imprimatur upon the invasion of Iraq would ever seem so important to you — and why none in fact was ever issued.
and by reading carefully selected Iraqi and “Iraqi” blogs”
I can guarantee that the many Iraqi blogs I read belonging to Iraqis are 100% authentic (unlike riverbend’s, who no one has ever met or interviewed, who has never returned even the most cordial email and whose blog reads as if it were written by a US grad student.)
“we are able to read the Iraqi and other Arabic press ”
Instead of trumpeting your linguistic expertise in this silly way, why not cite examples from the Iraqi and Arabic press that you think helps make your point? Otherwise i’d note that translations of the Arab press are freely available from the Arab newspapers themselves, and of course they’re read widely in the United States (as you should know living here yourself). Helena is also “half a world away” and yet she graces us and the readers of al hayat with her insights in English and no complaint from Shirin.
But then who cares what Iraqis think about their own lives? We all know they are not nearly as qualified to evaluate their own situation as the average war cheerleader who has never set foot in Iraq, and probably could not locate it on an unlabeled map.
Wooooah! Nahash Zefa’a! Nahash Zefa’a!
Seems to me that a lot of Iraqis reserve the right to cast opinions on a lot of things outside of Iraq, including for example, my right to life and liberty.
Just adding to the “One needs to wonder list…”, One needs to wonder why the Iraqi people did not raise an insurgency with the same ferocity and determination against Saddam as they have raised against the US and the Iraqi government.
Which brings me to…
So now Bush supporters measure the value of their deeds to those of Saddam Hussein ? Is that the only scale allowing you to sustain the comparison ?
Is that what it boils down to: a world comprising Bush-supporters and Bush-haters? Lady, that’s not what this thing is about, and it exposes a very narrow partisan viewpoint indeed. And if I may remind you, one of the key elements in the US involvement in both the first Persian Gulf War and this one was the doctrine first articulated by Jimma “the Idjit” Carter that any threat to the energy supplies of the Western World is a direct threat to the security of the United States.
Finally,
The real problem, Christiane, is that by all measurable and most non-measurable criteria, and in the opinion of many if not most Iraqis, Saddam Hussein comes out looking better.
For the measurable criteria, could you provide some of those measurements to support your statements.
I think that perhaps there should be a movement to force the US and Iraqi authorities to let Saddam run in the upcoming elections. He can even run from prison. After all, as I recall, in the last elections where he stood for office, he did garner 99% of the vote!
vadim:
“I’m not sure how having set foot in Iraq is germane, especially insofar as Helena herself has never to my knowledge set foot in Iraq nor have 99% of her commenters.”
There is one BIG difference: Since Helena (and myself by the way) are of the opinion that it’s not our (Westerners’) business to run Iraqis’ lives, she (or myself) doesn’t have to set foot in Iraq. On the other hand those, who cheerleader forceful ‘transformation’ of Iraq (under barels of ‘coalition’ guns) better know what they are cheerleading about (set foot there).
Vadim was talking about himself when he said that 99% of the commenters hadn’t set foot in Iraq.
Actually, quite a few have. The Iraqis, for example. Me too, I’ve been in Iraq quite a lot, and I continue to work on the country.
Actually it doesn’t make any difference to the pro-war party here. I still get insulted by JES from his eyrie in Israel, as though I don’t know anything about Iraq.
Pro-war? Just because someone doesn’t agree with your viewpoint that makes them in favor of war?
As to “having set foot in”, I seem to recall that during the Vietnam war, one of the arguments heard from some veterans was that we “peaceniks” didn’t have the right to protest, because we hadn’t set foot in Vietnam and, therefore, we didn’t know what we were talking about or have a right to comment on how the war was being conducted. So, the argument seems to cut both ways.
I think it would also be fair for those who haven’t set foot in or aren’t really familiar with Israel, except through what “their friends” tell them, refrain from commenting on Israeli society or telling us what to do. How does that sound?
“could you provide some of those measurements to support your statements.
Do a little research. This information is not hidden from sight, it is readily available from a variety of mainstream sources, including in some cases the mainstream U.S. press. Why, I do believe some of the negative reports actually come from U.S. government sources.
“I think that perhaps there should be a movement to force the US and Iraqi authorities to let Saddam run in the upcoming elections. He can even run from prison.”
Grow up, JES.
All bluff and bluster, eh? Just as I thought.
Do a little research
“by all measurable and most non-measurable criteria” suggests you have some specific measurable criteria in mind. Data like this would certainly make a compelling case and speak far louder than anecdotes and personal opinion. Since “this information is not hidden from sight,” and “it is readily available from a variety of mainstream sources” why not show us at least one mainstream source?
vadim, you say: “by all measurable and most non-measurable criteria” suggests you have some specific measurable criteria in mind.
You are being disingenuous.
The point is thet to the public opinion in question it matters not whether the criteria are measurable or not. They think the yanks stink and should get out, now.
Got it now?
Not so sure why Dominic feels he needs to be so strident here.
I don’t think that Vadim’s question is disingenuous at all. It is quite a reaaonable request. Shirin made a number of very sweeping statements comparing the situation in Iraq today versus that under Saddam Hussein, without providing any substantiation apart from the fact that she doesn’t need to because she is Iraqi. Further, she suggested that those who have never “set foot” in Iraq are not qualified to express an opinion (N.B. Dominic, that includes you).
Personally, I don’t know what the average Iraqi thinks about “the yanks”. I’d like to see some evidence before deciding.
Get it now, boychik?
Personally, I don’t know what the average Iraqi thinks about “the yanks”.
Nor did my comment address yank popularity at all but conditions before and after the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. On this score, I’ve provided one poll already suggesting that “most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it,” noting that the results were otherwise unflattering to the yank imperialists who stink.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm
Here’s another, via Oxford Research:
“An opinion poll suggests most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the war in Iraq began about a year ago.”
I realize that the BBC is essentially an arm of the Fox/Murdoch imperialist propaganda machine, but how would you explain results like these, Dominic?
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=15179
Yet another, more recent poll, from the Lebanese Daily Star:
To begin, we asked Iraqis to reflect on the fall of Saddam Hussein: Was Iraq better off without him? Among Sunnis, only 23 percent thought so. Among Shiites, however, 87 percent saw a better Iraq without Saddam. Kurds exceeded this number, with 95 percent claiming an improvement.
Strident? In a bit of a hurry, for sure.
The result comes out as a de facto experiment, where the matter has been put in an unequivocal manner – and denied!
Vadim actually thinks the yanks are loved in Iraq!
JES has got his finger on his bottom lip, waiting for “more evidence”. Perhaps he’s still hoping for a late shower of flowers on the humvees and Bradleys?
It’s amazing.
This is more like it. It’s an intro to an article by a man writing from Pondicherry, in India:
“It has become abundantly clear that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal is doomed. It has dug itself into a spider-hole of treachery and deceit it will never get out of. They have set the stage for their historical legacy alongside the most despicable tyrants ever to disgrace the human species. Similarly, if our species survives it, the stupendous American military will be remembered not only as the most brutal organized terror force ever, but also for being twice defeated by determined ragamuffin guerrillas using homemade improvised weaponry. There has been a sea-change during this past tumultuous ‘tipping point’ week. The tide has turned and around the world people are recognizing that the American empire itself is teetering at the brink of collapse.”
Read the rest of it at http://www.counterpunch.org/lee11252005.html
“Vadim actually thinks the yanks are loved in Iraq!”
AMAZING! Yes, it’s amazing that someone’s reading comprehension could be quite so poor — note to Dominic: I’m not interested in how loved or unloved are US forces in Iraq. I’ve made no claims to either effect. In case you missed it, I’ve cited two polls highlighting the unpopularity of military occupation. But the question at hand is whether Iraqis prefer Hussein’s rule to the current state of affairs post-invasion. Shirin thinks they do, but hasn’t offered any evidence to substantiate her claim. My poll data seems to flatly contradict her thesis.
By the way, some of us interpret world affairs in terms more significant than their impact upon US prestige. This is what distinguishes us from the Fox viewers, and their mirror images on the left, the Dominics of the world.
“twice defeated by determined ragamuffin guerrillas using homemade improvised weaponry.”
The fact that Iraq’s ragamuffin guerrillas have killed 10 times as many Iraqis as yank imperialist swine is of no consequence to Dominic the humanitarian. Also that those ragamuffin guerrillas somehow manage to kill many more Iraqis than even the US war machine itself.
Dominic, have you ever read through the Iraq Body Count database and observed who’s been responsible for the most deadly attacks on Iraqi civilians? Or is that irrelevant to bashing the US and sorting out mean old Dick Cheney?
Really Dom, the depth of feeling you have for the Iraqi people is touching.
JES – don’t know if you are still reading this thread, but you extrapolated quite a bit from my questions — hence the “better than Saddam” argument that followed. I never made an assumption one way or the other. Perhaps I did imply that attacking civilians with [chemical? incendiary?] weapons was Saddam-ish. But, really, I just wanted to know what your justification was.
US classified White Phosphorus as a chemical weapon when Saddam used it
‘ Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a “chemical weapon”.
The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: “Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders.”‘
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1123-03.htm