Why did we use chemical weapons in Fallujah? Why hasn't the U.S. media reported this? Why are we so dumb?

Question

http://videos.informationclearinghouse.info/fallujah_INGb.rm

Answer 1

ROTFL!

Are you really this gullible?

Chemical weapons were not used in the battle of Falluja. WP (White Phosphorus) artillery rounds were used to create a smoke screen to cover the initial breach and against enemy field fortifications.

In fact one of the biggest clues that we did not use chemical weapons can be inferred from any picture of the troops fighting that battle. The Soldiers and Marines who fought that battle were not wearing chemical protective gear!

BTW - if you are wondering what those flares are - look up 'missile decoys' on a web search engine.

And one final note: I was involved in the planning of that battle. If chemical weapons were used, I would have known about it.

Answer 2

The use of chemical weapons is EXPECTED in Iraq. The British used poison gas to suppress the Kurds in 1922. The Baghdad regime (King Faisal) saw how to do it.

No surprise then that the the Iraqis used poison gas on the Kurds when it was Saddam's turn to try to force the Kurds into submission to Baghdad.

The Iraqis also used chemical weapons against Iran. We are disturbed by chemical warfare but the Iraqis expect it, because they perceive the American occupation as just a continuation of the British occupation which replaced Ottoman rule.

That's when the learned how to use chemical warfare. The British occupation was a good teacher. If American occupiers use it today, they will not be surprised or overly concerned.

Answer 3

I can't get to the site you have in your question but I will say this... I was in Fallujah during the invasion NOV 2004 and I didn't see, touch or small a "chemical" weapon. So what ever BS you read... and are dumb enough to believe it... you should change the "we" to an "I" in your last question!

Besides... most news agencies are liberals and hate Bush so if anyone even farted in Fallujah, the world would have heard about it and Al Jezeera would have made sure of it!

Answer 4

I happen to know a young Marine who was on the operation in Fallujah and NO chemical weapons were used by the US.

Answer 5

None of the weapons used in Fallujah violated the Geneva Conventions. We used tear gas (CS), and white phospherous. Tear gas is a non leathal way of disrupting enemy activity. WP is used to mark targets, create smoke, and destroy equipment. It does not inflict mass casualties.

The reason the media hasn't reported this is because no violations of law occured and we didn't do anything that wasn't done in Bosnia, Baghdad, the Gulf War, Somalia, Panama, Haiti or any other modern war for that matter.

Answer 6

We did not really use them (chemical weapons). The article and issue involves willi pete (WP) or white phosphorus rounds. This WP burns and cannot be extinguished but is not a chemical round per se. To fall into the chemical round category it would require special handling and use as well as specific rules of engagement (normally stipulated by a lawyer). This is a round that is available to almost anyone in a tank and is primarily used for making smoke. Because we tankers (and our infantry comrades) are not stupid we also know that it sets fires and is a morale breaker on the enemy. No one can stand against it. We used to use it to mark troops in trucks in my day and in the jungle "You cant hide from Willie"

EDIT: I forgot the question about someone?? being dumb. I suggest that those engaged in battle are not dumb. They bring what is required to bear on the target. This is why the insurgents will not stand and fight. There is nowhere in Iraq more than 2 minutes from a bomb from a B-1 bomber. We see a target, we designate it, call it in and "Splash Out" steel on target.

"Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack."
- General George Patton Jr

Answer 7

Need to fact check - especially "info" you find on the internet. Why don't you find out who runs information clearing house, not just the Writer of the piece or Editior, but the Board of Directors and/or the Ownership. Then maybe there will be a clearer perspective as to how these "stories" rife with inconsistencies are disseminated as "real news"

Answer 8

Wow, mouthbreather -- you really are without a clue, aren't you!

Go to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Warfare (OPCW), and look up the international definitions of "chemical weapons". Go ahead, I'll wait . . . . . .

http://www.opcw.org/

(dum de dum de dum)

Okay, done? Now apologize for being a complete dunderhead. Then, repeat after me: "The use of smoke on the battlefield is NOT chemical warfare".

Answer 9

white phosporus commonly reffered to as willy pete in not chemical weapon. the only part in the second war in the gulf that claimed chemical capability was iraq. regardless it was just a pokerface.
white phosporus is a common content of smoke ammo, of the tracing ammo and in some case incendiary.
so what where are any residua of common used chemical weapons like yperit, sarin, etc?

Answer 10

I think you need to answer your last question for yourself, it's a good thing most people research a little better than you. You can't just believe one side. On the other hand I feel we should end this war the right way...nuke Iraq so all of you that keep crying about the war can finally shut up.