Willy Pete alleged to have been used in Falluja

[Splinty]

Just wanted to add, that over half of the force that went into Falluajah was Army. To include almost ALL of what was shown on the news.

[akd]

Originally posted by Splinty:

Just wanted to add, that over half of the force that went into Falluajah was Army. To include almost ALL of what was shown on the news.

huh? no it wasn't. There was an Army armored or mechanized battalion attached to provide heavy support and the 1st Cav. Div. cordoned off areas outside the city, but the majority of forces clearing Fallujah were Marines, from all that I have read.

[Nidan1]

Operation Phantom Fury October and November of 2004, was conducted by RCT-1 and RCT-7 USMC.

With RCT-1 was A and B Co. 2-7 Cav and C Co. 3-8 Cav, both Army units.

With RCT-7 Was TF 1-5 Infantry and TF 1-5 Cav. and 759th Composite MP Bn. also US Army Units.

There were also various Iraqi units attached.

By and large the main combat power of the Fallujah Operation was provided by the Marines.

This info. came from the book "No True Glory" A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah, By Bing West

[yuvuphys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by yuvuphys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />UN and many other major powers were on Saddam's payroll

Excuse me? The UN program was corrupt to the tune of over 12 billion dollars. Bribes were paid to politicians to the tune of millions of dollars.</font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by yuvuphys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by yuvuphys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />UN and many other major powers were on Saddam's payroll

Excuse me? The UN program was corrupt to the tune of over 12 billion dollars. Bribes were paid to politicians to the tune of millions of dollars.</font>

[Splinty]

Watch the videos, with the exception of the one about the Marine and the supposedly "helpless insurgent" they are all of combat troops from the 1st Infantry Division.(look at the patch, Marines don't wear patches) As further evidence, there is a Bradley shown launching TOWs at a building, the Marines don't have any Bradleys.

[akd]

Originally posted by Splinty:

Watch the videos, with the exception of the one about the Marine and the supposedly "helpless insurgent" they are all of combat troops from the 1st Infantry Division.(look at the patch, Marines don't wear patches) As further evidence, there is a Bradley shown launching TOWs at a building, the Marines don't have any Bradleys.

What videos and how do you know these videos are from the Fallujah battle?

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by akd:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Splinty:

Watch the videos, with the exception of the one about the Marine and the supposedly "helpless insurgent" they are all of combat troops from the 1st Infantry Division.(look at the patch, Marines don't wear patches) As further evidence, there is a Bradley shown launching TOWs at a building, the Marines don't have any Bradleys.

What videos and how do you know these videos are from the Fallujah battle? </font>

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The expectations for their behavior is exceptionally high (too high if you ask me), and therefore it is extremely easy for a few Soldiers to make the wrong call and have it blown out of proportion, while the insurgents are (by comparison) allowed to get away with murder.

This is just the way the world works. It isn't fair, nor is it good for Iraq or its people. It just is what it is.

Steve

The 'insurgent', that blows himself away, gets away from murder and life. He gets to have whatever sexual delights he/she wishes and can even smoke hashish with a butt-pipe. All scot-free in the afterlife(s).

I would surge for that. Where to surge from? Iran? Syria?

They must surge in from someplace.

[akd]

Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The expectations for their behavior is exceptionally high (too high if you ask me), and therefore it is extremely easy for a few Soldiers to make the wrong call and have it blown out of proportion, while the insurgents are (by comparison) allowed to get away with murder.

This is just the way the world works. It isn't fair, nor is it good for Iraq or its people. It just is what it is.

Steve

The 'insurgent', that blows himself away, gets away from murder and life. He gets to have whatever sexual delights he/she wishes and can even smoke hashish with a butt-pipe. All scot-free in the afterlife(s).

I would surge for that. Where to surge from? Iran? Syria?

They must surge in from someplace. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

The bulk of the fighting in Fallujah was indeed Marines. They weren't alone, as others have stated, but the constituted the bulk of the foot soldiers in the battle. From a quick check 4 out of the 6 major assault forces were Marines. The Army provided cruical elements for the assault, mostly in the form of armor but also including a sizeable amount of dismounted infantry.

I know of the videos and pics I've seen the bulk were Marines.

Steve

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

???(((Fuh)))Loo((JAH))???

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

Will INsurgers in Syriana be locals or 'imports' like they 'are' in Iraq?

[Drusus]

I think we have some double standards here.

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ ...

THESE REPORTS OF POSSIBLE WP CHEMICAL WEAPON ATTACKS SPREAD QUICKLY AMONG THE KURDISH POPULACE IN ERBIL AND DOHUK. AS A RESULT, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KURDS FLED FROM THESE TWO AREAS AND CROSSED THE IRAQI BORDER INTO TURKEY.

Source: declassifed 1995 intelligence document from the Department of Defense

[Peter Cairns]

Drusus,

Good post, I don't think we can have it both ways.

from what i've read it's pretty clear that this is becoming an issue of the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit.

It seems to be the case that if you intent to do damage with a chemical effect, such as smoke that can damage the lungs because it is corrosive, as WP is, then its outlawed.

If on the other hand you put down a smoke screen of the same substance and and the enemy happen to breath it in, then it's okay, because there was no "Intent".

The arguement over whether WP is a chemical weapon is a red herring, as the US has clearly stated that it deliberately used WP because the smoke forced people out because of it's properties, it looks like it pretty much has broken the spirit of the law if not the letter.

As to the "well thats war", arguement. If Churchill had given the go ahead to drop Anthrax on Germany in 41-42, then I suspect the germans would have been dropping smallpox on us within a year.

So some degree of restraint to stop it decending in to areas that we wouldn't want is worth considering.

As has been said here before, to win the fight against extremism you need to separate the terrorist from his support and things like WP, just make that harder.

To say it wasn't used against civilians when there were civilians in the area and men of military age were prevented from leaving or arressed if they tried too, make this look terrible in the eyes of arab world, with harm that will almost certainly outweigh any benefit that accrued on the battlefield.

Peter.

[Drusus]

I think the reason why WP shouldn't be used in populated areas is that there propably is going to be civilians in the area. Intent or not. But as said before WP is not the real issue here. WP wasn't the real issue during Saddam's years either.

If it was acceptable to use WP when attacking Fallujah is a question which has no clear answer. I just would like to ask why it was or wasn't ok for Saddam and why it was or wasn't ok for USA to use WP. For me the answer is not about WP but the reasons why it is used. You could insert bombs dropped from plane to that question and the answer will propably be the same. I happen to think that it is really important that people don't think that there is a (universally) correct answer to that question. But it should be a know fact that your enemies are doing bad things for evil reasons and you are doing good things for noble reasons. I haven't read any newspapers from WWI era but I am sure both sides were sure they were right and the others wrong. There could be the view that AIF are patriotic. Now they are terrorists. Would you consider yourself patriotic or terrorist if Iraq occupied your country and you were fighting against the occupation? Different views, different answers... And yes, there would be a legal government which you are fighting against. People knowing finnish winter war history should know what Terijoen hallitus stands for. The war is going to be lost or won in the mind of people of Iraq. If majority of _them_ think that USA is occupying their country and there is a puppet government and the AIF are doing a good job fighting for their freedom then the war will be lost.

What does this have to do with CMSF? This is one reason why there should be penalties for blowing everything up. Actually, I think this should be the biggest reason. Not what some European papers are going to write about the war. But what the local people will think about the US side. Liberators or not?

Ofcourse there is the possibility that I am full of BS.

Now, ofcourse USA has made their situation in the WP question a bit difficult. If they are claiming that when Saddam used WP it was bad and use of chemical weapons then they can't say that when they use it, it is ok. Also claiming that it was used just for illuminating when it wasn't is going to raise the question why the incorrect information?

To say it wasn't used against civilians when there were civilians in the area and men of military age were prevented from leaving or arressed if they tried

If they stay they are AIF, if they try to leave they are AIF trying to run away... Is that really what happened?

[Renaud]

THESE REPORTS OF POSSIBLE WP CHEMICAL WEAPON ATTACKS SPREAD QUICKLY AMONG THE KURDISH POPULACE IN ERBIL AND DOHUK.

I thought it was sarin and/or mustard gas in 91. Judging from the civilian casualty pictures I have seen from those areas it was bona-fide chemical weapons, not WP. Corpses strewn around the streets with no obvious wounds or damage to buildings, clothes or other material. Just piles of corpses.

Possibly the CIA operative who wrote the report was just ignorant of the difference between chemical weapons and WP, or even what WP is, and working with scanty information to be begin with.

[Splinty]

Hi Nidan, I have to find it, but there is a video of a squad of 1st ID soldiers firing a Javelin off of a rooftop. After they fire off the missle, a Bradley and an Abrams roll in and the Brad fires a couple of TOWs and alot of HE into a building while the tank engages something off in the distance. All of the soldiers in the video are Army. I will search for this video and related information.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Splinty:

Hi Nidan, I have to find it, but there is a video of a squad of 1st ID soldiers firing a Javelin off of a rooftop. After they fire off the missle, a Bradley and an Abrams roll in and the Brad fires a couple of TOWs and alot of HE into a building while the tank engages something off in the distance. All of the soldiers in the video are Army. I will search for this video and related information.

I remember the one you are talking about..someone had posted the link to it on this forum a while back. What I don't recall was whether or not it was from Fallujah.

US Army troops were surely in the area of Fallujah, but they were in support roles during the November 2004 final assault on the city.

Get a copy of the book I mentioned in my earlier post. It gives some real insight into the political and military machinations that took place during 2004 as related to the Fallujah situation.

[Drusus]

APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ, BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (U.S.) LED COALITION.

It seems that they are not mixing things up. They are saying that Saddam used WP. They are saying that WP is chemical weapon. They are saying that Saddam didn't use stronger chemical weapons (nerve gas) because Saddam was afraid of the coalition reaction. Now, to say that the reports writer just confused WP with mustard gas or something else (Sarin is ruled out) doesn't seem logical. I think there is quite good and accurate information in the report. So scanty information doesn't seem likely. And if WP wasn't used it doesn't make the situation any different. They are saying over and over again that WP is a chemical weapon.

The only way out is that it isn't clear (at least to me) who is saying that WP is a chemical weapon and what is the writers position. Actually I'm not 100% sure the writer is saying that WP is chemical weapon. Maybe he is just reporting the fact that a source has said that WP was used and that the source thinks that WP is a chemical weapon.

There is also one other interesting piece of information:

KURDISH REBELS' EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING HELP FROM U.S. LED COALITION FORCE -- THE KURDISH RESISTANCE'S DECISION TO RISE UP AND FIGHT HUSSEIN'S FORCES WAS TRIGGERED BY THE OVERWHELMING MILITARY POWER DISPLAYED BY THE COALITION DURING "DESERT STORM" AND THE PROPAGANDA BROADCASTS OF VOICE OF AMERICA.KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES REALLY BELIEVED THAT EVENTUALLY THE COALITION FORCE WOULD COME TO HELP THEM IN THEIR FIGHTING AGAINST IRAQI FORCES. AFTER LEARNING OF U.S. PRESIDENT BUSH'S "STAY OUT OF IRAQ INTERNAL AFFAIRS" POLICY, KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES FELT AS THEY WERE SET UP AND LET DOWN BY THE COALITION FORCE

This is the kind of thing you want to avoid when trying to win the populations confidence. I really think that the war is lost or win because of this kind of things, not with weapons. This war, at least.

[Bigduke6]

Drusus, you are a subversive. I like that.

So. Will there be cool subnationalities like Kurds in CMSF? And if there are, which side will they fight on? Even better, which side will they say they will fight on?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Drusus:

The only way out is that it isn't clear (at least to me) who is saying that WP is a chemical weapon and what is the writers position. Actually I'm not 100% sure the writer is saying that WP is chemical weapon. Maybe he is just reporting the fact that a source has said that WP was used and that the source thinks that WP is a chemical weapon.

It is also worth mentioning the this is an internal document, not a public statement. Just because some staffer wrote it does not mean it was ever US policy. I am unaware of any public condemnation of WP use by the US.

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

Is white phoshorous a Weapon of Miss Destruction?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

Is white phoshorous a Weapon of Miss Destruction?

"Miss Destruction" isn't listed at http://pageantcenter.com/pageant_state_listings.html

Presumably when the dizzy blonde young things competing for the title explain their ambitions to the leering compere, they must remember, when they say that they are interested in "Travel and promoting world peace", to add "...through superior firepower" to be in with a chance of winning.

Always assuming they did well enough in the swimsuit, ballgown, and 200 metres M-16 events.

All the best,

John.