America about to shamed before the world on Italian Satellite TV

regardless of the fact this is going to become another black eye in the big black bruise of a corpse that is this administration.

house in 06. presidency in 08. god wills it.

 

The rest of the world will never see it that way, there is always some story to be spined, there always an agenda to be pushed by some media member. That's just the way it is, just look at the D&D, for the same story (any story) I sure a number of posters here can spin it their way. So yeah, its not about reporting news, its all about pushing your own agenda.

 

That people will see it in a different light has no significance on whether the charges are true or not. As I indicated earlier, the original articles points out WP is banned by the 1980 UN Convention, but fails to mention we are not part of that convention. Then it mentions that the use is against the CWC Convention of 1997 - a complete fabrication since WP is not banned by said convention. If the point is to say - this is another instance where people will decry the actions of the US, then undoubtably that is true. If we are trying to figure out if the US acted within the normal course of combat, or to generalize - legitimately, then further discussion is warranted.

Lol. I am starting to wonder why there is such a movement against being precise in accusations.

This charge of semantics is starting to be irksome. The Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997 defined such terms for a reason. There is a delineation between covering a town with Sarin gas and killing all the inhabitants, for example, and using a bomb (also presumably made of essential chemicals). If you guys want to dismiss any challenge of your assertions, then you should move the post to the Hangout, where Debate and Discussion is not looked kindly upon. Then you can all agree in unison rather than seeking contrary opinions.

I agree but that's not a new thing.

 

Unfortunately, this is not just going to hurt this administration - it's going to hurt ALL of us.

I don't know if these allegations are true - none of us do - but it looks like they are true. I don't know about the ambiguities of international law as it applies to white phosphorus, but it looks like it's a bad idea to use it if one wants fight a 'just' war (if there is such a thing).

Regardless of all this - The United States as a whole is going to continue looking like the Great Imperial Satan to the rest of the world, and this administration is making it exponentially worse than it's ever been before.

I, for one, would like to believe that there are enough people in the world capable of realizing that most Americans are against this war, and significantly more would be against the use of chemical agents. Unfortunately, I don't think that's the case.

...and I think it sucks that I am going to have to personally suffer because of the extremity of the actions of an administration that I neither support nor believe in. And that is what the issue comes down to. War isn't pretty. Everyone knows that. And lots of terrible things happen during a war. Everyone knows that too.

But this war is a farce, it's unjustified, and it was completely unnecessary. And because this administration has acted in international affairs with all the clumsiness and rushed ignorance of a teenage boy getting laid for the first time, this generation and the next generation or two of Americans is going to have a hard time getting anything accomplished in the world that doesn't rely solely on having a bigger bomb - and that's not going to last.

All that goodwill in the world - turned to, at best, sarcasm and distrust, and, more likely, outright hatred.

Thanks Dubya, you ****ing ****.

 

if that's the case, then why not debate the issue of sensationalist reporting honestly, rather than throwing in a sensationalist charge of your own about US troops "murdering" a journalist? by so doing, you open yourself up to the charge that you don't really support the troops. by so doing, you reinforce the image that liberals, and the majority of the democratic party, will give credence to any ridiculous charge, so long as it can be spun to the detriment of the War in Iraq, and the administration. By so doing, you give credence to the belief that the lives of US soldiers are only important to you as a club with which to bludgeon George Bush. You may support the troops, but only if they somehow support your iniquitous campaign against freedom, liberty, and democracy for brown arabs. condescending, xenophobic, and yes, racist. ladies and gentlemen, i give you your Democratic Party, circa 2005. history will render the unkindest judgement of all: Irrelevant.

 

Do you think there is a difference between murder and manslaughter? People are dead in both cases.

 

Sarge, actually I recall reading some peices that stated that contrary to reports, many civilians were prevented from leaving the city and were turned back. Whether or not these claims are true, you and I will never know, but it's pretty easy to say "leave town."

As far as your basic premise in this thread, I would have to agree with you on merit of the technicalities. This isn't the breach of international treaty that the journalist has oversensationalized it as being. However, in line with the thread title, if we claim to be fighting this war for liberation and a just cause (LOL!), then it certainly won't be helping our international image any if it is proven that we employed the use of a chemical agent. In that case, whether or not we acted against international law would be irrelevant. The damage would have already been done. We too often seem to forget that is a war of ideas and winning the hearts of the Arab world.

 

this may be the longest original post by mc josh on record. who'd've thunk you could string five whole sentances together w/o resorting to quoting an article from Salon, Slate, Josh, or Kos? remarkable!

 

Yep, context is everything. In war there are inevitable casualties among civilians. While regrettable those are not 'crimes' unless intentional. I completely agree with your sentiment that they are terrible and regrettable. I don't agree with the article that you posted that implied they are against said conventions or can be cast as 'chemical attacks against civilians.'

 

I will attempt to reorient our relationship and remain civil. Feel free to call me Captain, Hayes, or Hayesstreet . A lesson I'll attribute begrudingly to SamFisher. As I indicated earlier that was merely banter with McMark.

That was my point and I'm glad we agree.

As I've already shown, the use of WP is not the same as using a 'chemical agent' as the international community defines it. While I don't always agree with the 'international community' so to speak, the Chemical Weapons Convention was established to limit the types of attacks typified by Saddam's attack against the Kurds. The article draws these two situations as parallel, which is clearly not the case. That the perception will be bad from the use of WP in the battle of Fallujah, and that civilians were injured or killed from this usage - I will not argue. That is certainly the case.

 

I will continue referring to you as "Sargeant Semantics," strictly out of endearment.

Oh ok, then I agree.

In regards to what was discussed earlier in the thread, I think even though this technically might not constitute as a chemical agent, perception is key. Just as we view beheadings in a different manner as conventional death, the "burning of the body down to the bone" will be seen differently than a conventional bombing death.

 

Perception is key to what? If this story was a total fabrication instead of a sensationalization the effect would be the same - bad. But concluding this will look bad is not the same as saying 'this was a bad/immoral/criminal action.' If all you're saying is 'this will look bad' then I agree.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa - I agree with you that it isn't "criminal" under international law, but I'm not going to concede that it isn't immoral. Considering that I already think the war itself is immoral, the process by which these deaths transpire (if I understood correctly, burning down to the bone) are certainly immoral, IMHO.

 

Ok, we can disagree on that. Does the manner in which one is killed affect the morality? If I understand you correctly to kill by a bullet is not immoral but by, say fire, is?


Would you say the soldiers that fired the WP were immoral?

 

Not at all. I've argued before that I don't see any difference between a beheading and a death by gunshot. My point was that since I personally view ALL of these deaths immoral due to my view of the war being unjust, then I obviously view this type of death as immoral as well. In this case, it's just a matter of varying degrees. I know that you have said in the past that you don't think this war is immoral, so if holding true to what I said earlier (that there is no differentiation in death), then no, I don't expect you to view these deaths as immoral.

See explanation above. Both are the same, IMHO.

That's a tricky one. I said earlier that I see no difference between a bullet and death by chemical agent, and of course there's also the fact that the action was done upon order of their commander. They were fully aware that what they were doing would cause more suffering than a conventional death. However, death is death. I don't know, good question.

I would propose to you though, along these same lines, just out of curiosity because I saw a poster advocate torture in the other thread along the basis that these terrorists perform beheadings etc. Do you view the person that beheads his victim any more immoral than the one who puts a bullet through their heart?

 

You don't address the substance of the article at all.

You accuse of racism with no proof.

You accuse people of being against democracy with zero proof.

You accuse people of being against liberty with nada for proof.

You accuse people of being xenophobic without a shred of proof.

Yet you seem to take offense at someone else posting a word claiming lack of proof.

Fascinating. Not exactly a star studded model for debate, but ineresting.

 

Ok, fair enough.

Well, something to think about I guess.

Hmmm. MORE immoral? If it were in combat like shogun then probably not. I don't think its more immoral to kill a soldier with a nuke than a bullet, or napalm than a bullet. Killing a civilian is a more complicated. We've done it on purpose on a massive scale in WWII, for example. On a smaller scale in Serbia. I don't think those are immoral actions. Killing civilians in urban combat is neither moral or not - amoral I guess. Just plain unfortunate. Not 'wrong' because you can't let the 'bad guys' have sanctuary. Not 'right' because you're killing innocent people even if they're not the target.