US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah

If WP is a chemical weapon, then so is TNT, C4 and gunpowder.

Matter of fact, I can't think of a modern weapon that's not a chemical weapon except the bayonet.

Ridiculous!

Anyone who makes remarks like body melted or burned all over with clothes intact caused by WP doesn't have a firm grip on reality. Can't happen.

 

The pics are out there ..carpro...after you
remove your head...from the sand...look them up.

Of course it burns ..and it burns flesh ..that
is not in question...get real.

Pathophysiology: White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small subsegment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing.

Few studies have investigated the degree of tissue destruction associated with white phosphorus injuries. In the experimental animal model, most tissue destruction appears to be secondary to the heat generated by oxidation.

Systemic toxicity has been described extensively in the animal model. Pathologic changes have been documented in the liver and kidney. These changes result in the development of progressive anuria, decreased creatinine clearance, and increased blood phosphorus levels. Depression of serum calcium with an elevation in the serum phosphorus level (reversed calcium-phosphorus ratio) with electrocardiographic changes including prolongation of the QT segment, ST segment depression, T wave changes, and bradycardia also have been observed. Oral ingestion of white phosphorus in humans has been demonstrated to result in pathologic changes to the liver and kidneys. The accepted lethal dose is 1 mg/kg, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death. Individuals with a history of oral ingestion have been noted to pass phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome").

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic918.htm

 

It also burns clothing. I have seen it with my own eyes.

Either way, it's legal and not recognized by international authorities as a "Chemical" weapon.

 

No, you're not. I recall that as well.

 

I have always thought we should tell women and children to leave the large cities and give them 24 hours to do it. Then do whatever it takes to vaporize our enemy Iraqi crazies.

Why do we continue to let our soldiers along with the British and Australian men and women to get picked off one by one.

Truman was right, get the job done quickly, so they know we are not just play war games. Go from one big city to another until the enemy is either vaporized or flee back to Syria or Iran.

Sometime you get the feeling there must be money being made by some people or we would end the war and get the job done.

Our Generals are made to look foolish by our battle strategies in Iraq.

Are we not using the small neuclar bombs because we want to look good in the eyes of the countries of the world. 98% hate us now anyway; what is the big problem with getting the war ended quickly?

Dr. Berrian

 

"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says. "-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to classify it as a chemical in that manner than so is c4, and so is the flame throwers that were used in world war 11. I am telling you I have received army trainning on Chemical warfare and WP is not part of the training. We do not consider it chemical warfare even when the enemy uses it on us. Saddam used chemical weapons on the kurds, and you want to equate us with that.

If I am in close quater combat in Iraq and I rumage thrugh a box an find a WP grenade, I am not going to say, "wait this is for incendiary pruposes, let me find something else." I am gonna pull the pin on that sucker and chuck it at the enemy. But you can't understand that because you want to sit in your arm chair and tell the soldiers who are there how to fight.

If you simply want to question the use of WP, fine, but please don't equate it with chemical warfare because it is not. Go see Sadaam if you want to see what Chemical warfare is!

 

The terrorist didn't use chemical weapons on the WTC but still a lot of people suffered and died so should we say what is the big deal about planes torching our buildings.

 

According to the standards set by the Italian Documentary, the planes were most certainly "chemical" weapons. They were loaded with fuel, a chemical weapon.

 

"According to the standards set by the Italian Documentary, the planes were most certainly "chemical" weapons. They were loaded with fuel, a chemical weapon."--------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be about the same reasoning. There is no comparison beteween the use of an old tech veitnoam era weapon like WP, and what the terrorist did on 9/11. It is insain to try and compare the two.

 

--------------------------------------------
We were attacked by terrosist extremist, they didn't use chemical weaponary, so shouldn't we be sayin "What's the Big deal" .but instead we proclaim to the world (rightly so) that the act was so terrible and uncalled for, then we go after the terroist where they were supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan and then we put Osama on the back burner and then invade Iraq and use Napalm on Falluja. Yes I would say that part was very insane.

 

But Rocko, you are widening the issue to wide for the conversation. We just don't believe the Italian media or anyone else should charaterize the use of WP as "chemical warfare". That is like calling a Daisey cutter an atomic bomb.

 

Perhaps you are right Bunyon. What's been done has been done and we can't take it back. But still the powers that be need to be told that some things that were done were not the right things to do and if public opinion means anything(I really wonder if it does ) our elected officials in Washington should take steps not repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

 

Left up to the news media---we'd be shootin' blanks at the enemy!!

 

This thread is on page three and will be closed no earlier than 0800 EST today.

 

Closed at 0930 EST