[HaRdLy]

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

As a soldier you have a duty to refuse to carry out illegal orders. Given the number of violations the US perpetrated in Iraq, from the invasion itself to the use of illegal weapons, it was probable that he'd be asked to do something illegal.

How thick are you? The coward signed on the dotted line, and trained with the 82nd Airborne. He knew full well what he was getting himself into. END OF STORY.

The guy is a freaking COWARD, yellow to the core.

What illegal weapons have the US used?

[HaRdLy]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

As a soldier you do not have the option on which war you can or can't take part in, I think its that simple.

Exactly.

[djakeydd]

I would sure like to hear what the lib's "OFFICIAL" position is on Afghanistan. If anyone has a link that explains it I would love to hear/see.

[Reverend Blair]

$1:

I am almost positive they do not have Napalm weapons in the system anymore, and they do not have offensive WP weapons. White or Red Phosphorous is strictly used in illumination rounds. DU rounds are not used except in the APFSDS which is a anti tank round (Americans rely on the cobra, apache or A-10 for anti armor mostly now). Daisy Cutters and other scatterable munitions are not recomended in civilian areas but are not illegal.

Its hard for me to make an accurate search without the computer system used by EOD for idenifying and disarming munitions.

In general though the americans do not sign UN weapon bans, they still refuse to sign the anti personnel mine treaty for example. This is so they can use any almost any weapon in theater.

Except that they were caught using napalm...they'd renamed it, but it was the same weapon...on enemies who were dug in. Soldiers who fought at Falluja have come forward and said they were ordered to fire phosphorous rounds at enemy positions, not up in air. Daisy cutters were dropped in residential areas, violating the Geneva Conventions and the duty to protect civilians.

The US has signed international agreements on the use of all of those weapons with the exception of DU, but DU may come under other conventions because of the evidence that it has lasting effects.

$1:

How thick are you? The coward signed on the dotted line, and trained with the 82nd Airborne. He knew full well what he was getting himself into. END OF STORY.

The guy is a freaking COWARD, yellow to the core.

What illegal weapons have the US used?

Apparently I'm not as thick as you, since you can apparently only muster the intellectual wherewithal to see things in black and white and insist on a worldview so simplistic that I doubt it can survive in a three dimensional world.

Evidence about the war being based on lies and the many illegal acts occurring there weren't being discussed in the mainstream US media before 2004. It's entirely possible that he signed on the line, then had a change of heart due to getting more information about the situation. In other words, no, he likely didn't know what he signed up for.

When he found out he came to Canada and asked for asylum. We should grant that to him.

[roger-roger]

What did they rename Napalm to? I dont see how they could fire WP at an enemy position. The rounds explode in mid air and have parachutes, they could have fired illume over the enemy but thats hardly firing wp at the enemy. Where does it say you cant use airburst fuzes in the geniva convention?

[ridenrain]

WP is used for smoke and it's often used for sighting rounds and included in a standard US HE barrage for screening purposes.

Rev. Can you rpovide a link or details to these events?

[Reverend Blair]

Just telling you what's been reported in the press. I believe with the phosphorus rounds they were firing them low so the parachutes wouldn't be effective. The napalm was slightly reformulated...they used a different kind of gel or something. It was still effectively gasoline jelly though. The US government has refused to investigate.

I never said that the Geneva Conventions said you couldn't use airburst fuses...don't put words in my mouth...I said that using daisy cutters in residential areas violated the duty to protect civilians, which is part of the Geneva Conventions.

Using mercenaries is also against various conventions the US has signed, BTW. Not really pertinent to this, I know, but the presence of Blackwater and similar groups shows a general disregard for international law by the US military, as does the use of torture, renditioning prisoners to countries that commit torture, and the whole Guantanamo mess.

[Reverend Blair]

Ah, here we go with the links thing again. I must be fortunate to have Google...it seems to be a rare commodity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1115-03.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/16/iraq.usa
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/ ... iraq01.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le9175.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/ira ... 85038.html

[ridenrain]

The press has a nasty habit of getting everything wrong because they don't know or care and have a totally diferent mindset than the troops.

Wp isn't used for illumination. It's used for incendiary or smoke. If you're talking artillery onto a target with single rounds, you need to see where they are hitting so the WP smoke rounds make sense.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ons/wp.htm

I'm not sure what illumination is done with but it's not WP. Considering the US and NATO are leaders in night vision gear, I can't see them stocking these rounds because all they'd do is even the odds against them.

Don't know about napalm but considering gasoline has quadrupled on price, I can see some changes were nessesary.

[Reverend Blair]

You need to read the links, Ridenrain. You asked for them, I supplied them. According to the BBC, the Independent, and the Guardian, the US admitted the use of phosphorous.

[EyeBrock]

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

$1:

I am almost positive they do not have Napalm weapons in the system anymore, and they do not have offensive WP weapons. White or Red Phosphorous is strictly used in illumination rounds. DU rounds are not used except in the APFSDS which is a anti tank round (Americans rely on the cobra, apache or A-10 for anti armor mostly now). Daisy Cutters and other scatterable munitions are not recomended in civilian areas but are not illegal.

Its hard for me to make an accurate search without the computer system used by EOD for idenifying and disarming munitions.

In general though the americans do not sign UN weapon bans, they still refuse to sign the anti personnel mine treaty for example. This is so they can use any almost any weapon in theater.

Except that they were caught using napalm...they'd renamed it, but it was the same weapon...on enemies who were dug in. Soldiers who fought at Falluja have come forward and said they were ordered to fire phosphorous rounds at enemy positions, not up in air. Daisy cutters were dropped in residential areas, violating the Geneva Conventions and the duty to protect civilians.

The US has signed international agreements on the use of all of those weapons with the exception of DU, but DU may come under other conventions because of the evidence that it has lasting effects.

$1:

How thick are you? The coward signed on the dotted line, and trained with the 82nd Airborne. He knew full well what he was getting himself into. END OF STORY.

The guy is a freaking COWARD, yellow to the core.

What illegal weapons have the US used?

Apparently I'm not as thick as you, since you can apparently only muster the intellectual wherewithal to see things in black and white and insist on a worldview so simplistic that I doubt it can survive in a three dimensional world.

Evidence about the war being based on lies and the many illegal acts occurring there weren't being discussed in the mainstream US media before 2004. It's entirely possible that he signed on the line, then had a change of heart due to getting more information about the situation. In other words, no, he likely didn't know what he signed up for.

When he found out he came to Canada and asked for asylum. We should grant that to him.

As Derby said, if he had a change of heart he should have dealt with it in the US. The US Army isn't interested in sending broken toys like Heinzmen into combat. Not good for morale and all that.
He could have defied his 'ready-to-move' order and he would have been charged with a simple 'disobey orders' offence.
He would of at worst, done some stockade time and got a discharge.
But he didn't do that, instead he deserted and entered Canada illegally.

He has exhausted every avenue of appeal in a Canadian system that is very generous.
He does not deserve anybody's sympathy. He has cost this country a lot of money in legal bills, welfare etc.
He could have sorted this out himself if he would have had the moral fortitude to do so, instead he ran.

[piperalpha]

Get rid of this loser. If he didn't want to fight in a war maybe he shouldn't have joined the military.
We sent one back already, he was caught smoking dope in a city park. They don't respect thier country or ours. What the hell do we want a cowardice scofflaw fugitive for?

[PENATRATOR]

DerbyX DerbyX:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

So what law was violated buttercup?

What law did the 9/11 hijackers violate? They attacked an enemy also.

In fact what law did Argentina violate or any nation in history that invaded another?

Like I said sunshine, if you are going to make some half-hearted BS attempt to justify our invasions then you had better be prepared to defend any nations aggression against another under the same BS.

[PENATRATOR]

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

Ah, here we go with the links thing again. I must be fortunate to have Google...it seems to be a rare commodity.

Well when you are constantly talking out of your ass with no first hand knowledge, I guess you need google

[roger-roger]

It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. Thats what the

Thats what the convention really says this is what your link said:

Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons."

There are WP mortar smoke rounds that explode on impact, but the radius on them is quiet small, around 15-20ft. Where civilians are most likely to be hurt is when WP is covered with either water or sand it will stop burning. If it is exposed to air it instantly burns again. If you are walking through an area hit by WP you are at risk of kicking up fragments which will burn you if you come in contact. There are 105mm and 155mm versions that the Americans use but I am not sure on what type of long range artillery was available for the assault.

After talking to a EOD buddy (he directed me to this website) a type of aircraft bomb specifically the BLU-82B. Its basically has a long standoff fuse that lets the bomb explode above the ground. I confused had "daisy cutter" with newer version of the fuse, which uses a proximity sensor to judge its distance from the ground. Since the BLU-82b is one of the very few munitions left with this fuse the Blu 82 is sometimes also called the daisy cutter. The Blu 82 is also referred to as a daisy cutter since it was primarily used to clear helicopter LZs in Vietnam, but it was called Commando Vault at that time. As long as they were not directly targeting civilians they can get away with using these close to cities.

The civilian population was leafleted several days before the assault on Fallujah, in order to minimize civilians in the area.

The question of WP and Mk-77s is moot though since:

Use of aerial incendiary bombs against civilian populations, including against military targets in civilian areas, was banned in the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III. The U.S. however, has only signed Articles I and II, not Protocols III, IV, And V, and is therefore not bound by any such ban.

So since the states did not sign the ban they do not have to follow it. There is also a ban on anti personnel mines in the Geneva Convention; the US has not signed it. This is why the US still uses claymores and other anti personnel mines and Canada cannot.
This is not something that started in Iraq, the US fought and still fights this way in Afghanistan. I think he just heard that it was going nuts over there, chickened out and ran. If he did not want a combat role HE SHOULD NOT HAVE JOINED A COMBAT TRADE.