tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11578122.post113292829265917713..comments2023-11-02T05:48:48.115-04:00Comments on GayandRight: Some light on white phosphorus...GayandRighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08763498369390166108noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11578122.post-1132945197545905902005-11-25T13:59:00.000-05:002005-11-25T13:59:00.000-05:00Look, I agree that WP isn't TECHNICALLY a chemical...Look, I agree that WP isn't TECHNICALLY a chemical weapon. But it is still true that the U.S. condemned Saddam when he used it, and that they refered to it as a chemical weapon back then (but of course, it's OK to misidentify the nature of a weapon in some cases, but not in others).<BR/><BR/>And I don't think that the Americans deliberately used WP against civilians. But it seems clear that they used it in the proximity of civilians, and that civilians were killed, and also horribly injured by it. And it seems to me that if a weapon is questionable enough that many civilized countries refuse to use it, and there are international treaties strictly governing when where and how it can and can't be used, then you ought to be extra carful when using it (in the Americans defence, they aren't actually signatories to the treaties that ban the use of white phosporous against civilians, and ban it's use for other than it's legitimate purpose as a smoke screen and misdirection tactic).<BR/><BR/>Napalm isn't a chemical weapon either, but if the U.S. had killed civilians with Napalm in Iraq, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. And I don't think that just because the Americans haven't come to the same moral conclusion about WP as they have about Napalm means that we shouldn't hold their feet to the fire over it's use in this way. It's not just about blaiming the Americans for how they used WP. It's about making sure they never use WP that way again.Lord Kitchener's Ownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08348376638620272991noreply@blogger.com