Show Comments Here (33) |

Hide Comments

Do any of those books talk about the use of white phosphorous as an offensive weapon, or do they cling to the Pentagon's initial lie that WP was used for illumination only?

Posted by Wilson Kolb at December 9, 2005 10:35 PM

There's only one book mentioned, and it covers the political side of the battle too, including the media shaping of public opinion. (Although the focus is on the Marines that were on the ground.) Too much to get into in a brief comment, but if you're really interested in what when on in Fallujah, Baghdad, Washington and elsewhere during those months you'll read the book.

Posted by Greyhawk at December 9, 2005 11:20 PM

Let me ask again, Greyhawk, and see if you can dig deep and tell the truth, however agonizing it might be for a rightwingnut Republican to make the attempt.

Do any of those books talk about the use of white phosphorous as an offensive weapon, or do they cling to the Pentagon's initial lie that WP was used for illumination only?

Posted by Wilson Kolb at December 10, 2005 12:03 AM

Jesus, Korb, who cares? WP has been used in war for a century. There's nothing wrong with it. Get a freaking clue.

Posted by Mohammed Atta at December 10, 2005 12:20 AM

He doesn't want a clue. He wants discussion of white phosphorus in Fallujah. A discussion of the wider issues, situation, etc., would only be a distraction, nay, an obfuscation.

Posted by Julie at December 10, 2005 01:26 AM

The reason I asked is because it would be a sign of the book author's integrity, indepedence, objectivity and powers of observation. If a discussion of WP is missing from that book or if the book merely regurgitates the Pentagon's lying on the subject, there's a high chance that it's just one more piece of rightwingnut propaganda.

Greyhawk doesn't want to answer the question because rightwingnuts are incapable of giving a straight answer to a simple question.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at December 10, 2005 01:55 AM

KORB, are you still here? Go away. Start your own blog somewhere. I'm sick of your blubbering.Crawl back under your log.

Posted by Lucifer at December 10, 2005 02:10 AM

Kolb, it's readily apparent that "the reason you asked" is because it's your current talking point. I hardly think that you're one to be able to comment on someone's "integrity, indepedence, objectivity and powers of observation."

Posted by malclave at December 10, 2005 02:17 AM

Actually, I'm wondering if Kolb has a link to the original statement about WP being used for illumination-only.

Posted by Patrick Chester at December 10, 2005 04:02 AM

Patrick, are you denying that the military spread this lie? Come on. Do it. Make my day. Please.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at December 10, 2005 06:33 AM

"Kolb, it's readily apparent that 'the reason you asked' is because it's your current talking point."

Leave it to a knee-jerk, rightwingnut Bushbot to label the truth a "talking point." No wonder the U.S. military is losing the Iraq War. They've totally lost the ability to know what's true and what isn't.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at December 10, 2005 06:56 AM

Denying? No, I'm simply asking for you to back up your claim with the actual statement. If you can't provide it, then denial won't be needed.

Posted by Patrick Chester at December 10, 2005 07:48 AM

Sorry, Pattycakes, but you know that the government denied using WP at Fallujah for anything but illumination. That's a fact. If you dispute, then say so. Come on, are you too cowardly to even try to lie? That's not very wingnutly of you. Better watch out, they might pull your fascist credentials.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at December 10, 2005 08:06 AM

In other words, you cannot back up your claim that the Pentagon lied about using WP only for illumination, and are now changing your claim to "the government" for some reason.

Posted by Patrick Chester at December 10, 2005 09:53 AM

Greyhawk here:

Wilson

Sorry if I wasn't clear before. Much of your confusion is probably regarding the various branches of the service. Bing West's book is about Marines, and the WP issue is Army. Use of WP is about as common as use of bullets, and both are "legal". The issue is a manufactured one, designed to appeal to guys like you. (Best example: the claims that WP is a magical chemical that burns flesh and leaves clothes intact.)

The US State Department commented in response to reporters questions regarding use of WP - they were wrong. I'm not even clear why reporters were asking a DoD-related question of the State Department.

Anyhow, Marines are Marines, Army is Army, and State is State and DoD is DoD. If you keep these straight you'll be able to think through the issue. Yes, it's easier to say they're all the same and avoid any real contemplation of the issue - that's what the folks who provide your news count on.

Back to the book. West doesn't spare the politicians who made bad decisions re: Fallujah. His examination of the interaction between the US Govt., international allies, the media, and the nascent Iraqi government is straightforward. If you want to cherry-pick negative comments about any of them from the book you can - but it's only in context that the real sweep of events can be grasped.

But all that's background of the book, which is about the battles and the men who fought them.

As I said - too complex for a brief blog comment - that's why it's a book - and likewise too complex for those who shut their eyes to reality. I say "read it" - you say "don't", and cite your fear that it could challenge your curently held beliefs as justification. I've noticed more than a few on the "anti-war" side are eager to tell people what not to read lately - see response to the US Strategy for Victory in Iraq for the best example.

This "whatever you do don't read that" atitude is troubling - and very telling. But since we've always linked stories from all sides here - knowing that people can make up their own minds - I might be more opposed to that "keep 'em ignorant" approach than most.

Hope that helps.

Posted by Greyhawk at December 10, 2005 12:05 PM

Clarifying: 'Use of WP as common as use of bullets' - in any given battle both will be used, the number of bullets fired will far exceed the number of WP rounds.

Posted by Greyhawk at December 10, 2005 12:11 PM

Lastly (for now) the real issue in Fallujah isn't white phosphorus - it's civilians. West's book deals with this too. By most traditional definitions, most of the enemy fighters in Fallujah were "civilians" - they didn't belong to any national Army, no uniforms, etc. In fact, this was a significant problem for the Marines because one moment a group is shooting at them from a house, then they abandon the position. Moments later the Marines observe a group of "civilians" running across the road.

This problem dates back to Baghdad in '03, when Saddam ordered his Army to fight in the streets in civilian clothes (see "Thunder Run", an excellent account by an LA Times reporter. Enter that title in our search window and you'll find I've written several posts on it.)

Likewise in Fallujah the enemy sent women out to retrieve the wounded, and used children as courriers in the streets during the battle. The Marines avoided firing at them.

As I've noted, the battle for Fallujah was the most telegraphed punch in the history of warfare. The coalition (which includes the government of Iraq) broadcast the upcoming battle and oferred all who were willing evacuation to safe locations before the shooting started.

So here is the issue we must grapple with in this war. And from Baghdad to Fallujah, the enemy wanted those "civilians" to be killed, in order to provoke a predictable response from any who recognize the horror of war, and give cover to many of their allies who could then feign outrage at the carnage they had engineered.

Posted by Greyhawk at December 10, 2005 12:27 PM

Greyhawk, that is about the lamest response I could have imagined. Yup, let's talk about the U.S. victory over Japan without mentioning the atomic bombings because that was an Air Force operation. What a joke.

And just to head a few things off at the pass, I think Truman was correct to nuke Japan under the circumstances. The decision saved lives. And I don't necessarily object to the use of WP, but I find it very suspicious that the U.S. government felt a need to lie through its teeth about the issue.

If the book skips over WP or it parrots the government's propaganda on the issue, then it's nothing more than another rightwingnut political tract.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at December 10, 2005 05:54 PM

I think Mr. Kolb needs a new hobby. Anyway, the Instapundit's Afghanistan Correspondent isn't quite new - Major M. sort of replaced me within a month of me redeploying back home (April-May timeframe). Professor Reynolds has had decent luck with us Army O-4s so far, heh heh. I was in the Bagram area, Major M is Khandahar area. I believe this is his third report so far. Keep up the good work!

Posted by Major John at December 11, 2005 02:32 AM

Word is the situation is deteriorating in Afghanistan. Of course, before long the word from the Liar in Chief will be: The Taliban is our friend. The Taliban has always been our friend.

Hey, Major, did you guys call the, ah, interrogations rooms "the ministry of love?"

Posted by Wilson Kolb at December 11, 2005 02:47 AM

...and Kolb still can't provide a link proving his claims about the Pentagon.

Posted by Patrick Chester at December 11, 2005 04:00 AM

Pattycake, Pattycake ... do your own research, child.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at December 11, 2005 08:50 AM

Your assertion, your burden.

The State Department is not the Pentagon. You have been asked to prove your claim from your first comment on this topic and you have refused.

Oh well.

Posted by Patrick Chester at December 11, 2005 11:12 AM

So if Condoleeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzza tells lies, it's okay then? What a joke. By the way, your Liar in Chief is going to attack Iran within a couple of months. The nuclear program will be the excuse, but the real issue is that the Iranians are planning to trade oil in Euros at the end of March.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at December 12, 2005 02:38 AM

Thanks for confirming you don't have any proof at all. Your posting habits gave it away: if you had some link to an article or document that you thought proved your case you would have posted it immediately accompanied by triumphic gloating. Instead all you have are unsupported assertions, the usual insults and frantic distraction attempts.

All very boring.

Posted by Patrick Chester at December 12, 2005 04:12 AM

Actually not. Your Liar in Chief's liar at the State Department wasn't the only liar involved. So first the State Department told the lie that it was used only for illumination. They had to take it back when some left-wing bloggers found the article in the Army's own publication that said otherwise.

http://w3t.org/?u=fbw

But apparently no one passed the word to the Pentagon's spokesliar, Lt. Col. Steve Boylan. You see, the Army magazine article said the following of WP:

[i]We used it for screening missions at two breeches and as a potent psychological [b]weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes[/b] when we could not get effects when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.[/i]

But this is what the spokesliar, Light Colonel Boylan, told the [i]Democracy now[/i] radio program that WP wasn't used against people:

[i]LT. COL. STEVE BOYLAN: [b]I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted[/b] by the use of white phosphorus. Again, I did not say white phosphorus was used for illumination. White phosphorus is used for obscuration, which white phosphorus produces a heavy thick smoke to shield us or them from view so that they cannot see what we are doing. It is used to destroy equipment, to destroy buildings. That is what white phosphorus shells are used for.[/i]

http://w3t.org/?u=fby

But the Army's own publication says that WP was indeed used for more than "obscuation" and destruction of buildings and equipment. According to the Army, it was used to terrify insurgents hiding in trenches and foxholes.

You see, [i]NO BRANCH[/i] of the United States Government, while under the control of the Liar in Chief, can ever tell the truth about anything at any time. And Patrick Chester can't either, because he's just one more rightwingnut who sees his job as being to click his heels together, raise his right arm stiff at a 45-degree angle and scream [i]Jawohl, mein Fuhrer Bush![/i]

Oh, and if the State Department and the Army's spokesliar would lie about what they did lie about, I also tend to believe the Italian journalists when they reported that WP was used against civilians. That action, if it happened, was a war crime under the Third Geneva Convention.

But Greyhawk and the rest of his amen chorus have shown themselves quite tolerant of war crimes, as long at they're ordered by their Liar in Chief and carried out by the U.S. military.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at December 12, 2005 04:52 AM

Actually not. Your Liar in Chief's liar at the State Department wasn't the only liar involved. So first the State Department told the lie that it was used only for illumination. They had to take it back when some left-wing bloggers found the article in the Army's own publication that said otherwise.

http://w3t.org/?u=fbw

But apparently no one passed the word to the Pentagon's spokesliar, Lt. Col. Steve Boylan. You see, the Army magazine article said the following of WP:

We used it for screening missions at two breeches and as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.

But this is what the spokesliar, Light Colonel Boylan, told the Democracy now radio program that WP wasn't used against people:

LT. COL. STEVE BOYLAN: I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted by the use of white phosphorus. Again, I did not say white phosphorus was used for illumination. White phosphorus is used for obscuration, which white phosphorus produces a heavy thick smoke to shield us or them from view so that they cannot see what we are doing. It is used to destroy equipment, to destroy buildings. That is what white phosphorus shells are used for.

http://w3t.org/?u=fby

But the Army's own publication says that WP was indeed used for more than "obscuation" and destruction of buildings and equipment. According to the Army, it was used to terrify insurgents hiding in trenches and foxholes.

You see, NO BRANCH of the United States Government, while under the control of the Liar in Chief, can ever tell the truth about anything at any time. Baghdad Bob wasn't shut down, he was simply replaced by an American spokesliar. And Patrick Chester can't either, because he's just one more rightwingnut who sees his job as being to click his heels together, raise his right arm stiff at a 45-degree angle and scream Jawohl, mein Fuhrer Bush!

Oh, and if the State Department and the Army's spokesliar would lie about what they did lie about, I also tend to believe the Italian journalists when they reported that WP was used against civilians. That action, if it happened, was a war crime under the Third Geneva Convention.

But Greyhawk and the rest of his amen chorus have shown themselves quite tolerant of war crimes, as long at they're ordered by their Liar in Chief and carried out by the U.S. military.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at December 12, 2005 04:55 AM

...aw, Kolb found a link he thinks proves his claims and acts the usual way. Godwin would be proud.

Did you wise up and wait with this oh-so-"damning" link or were you frantically searching and lucked onto it?

I'm guessing frantic search since your link isn't from a primary source. "Democracy Now"? Yeah, that's an unbiased source. That and your attempts to press my buttons by calling me a fascist liar indicate you still don't have any real proof of your initial claims and can only obfuscate and attack in the hope it fools people into believing you.

Whatever. You're still getting boring.

Posted by Patrick Chester at December 12, 2005 05:33 AM

Have a little trouble with the bold and italics commands there, buddy? Thats funny. I bet that whole shrieking incoherence thing does get in the way sometimes. Anyway, here goes:

When Boylen refers to "people", do you think,I mean really try to wrap your head around this here, he might be referring to civilians? Maybe? Because I'm sure he knows that anytime you call down any sort of artillery close to an enemy, there is a chance of them being injured. So if you knowingly target civilians with this, then yes, it is a war crime, and here he is stating that no "people", as in civilians, were deliberately targeted by WP.

Did you even bother to read the rest of the article, or did you just cherry pick what you wanted? Because Boylan later had this to say
"It is not considered a chemical weapon as chemical weapons are described today. And again, he is again in error. And I would stack up my 21 years of training in the military versus his and what his profession is now. All of our chemical weapons have been declared to the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons are being destroyed in the United States in accordance with our obligations under the chemical weapons convention"

Thats talking to englehart, a supposed expert on the WP used in fallujah, who later admitted this:
"Well, based off where I was at, I wasn't actually involved in direct combat. I was in a tactical attack center"

Also talked about in this article is the now debunked assertion that WP somehow melts the skin of its victims, but leaves the clothes intact. Come on Kolb, you are at least semi-literate, step away from the talking points and think about that one for a bit. "Hmm, a chemical that burns skin to the bone but doesnt touch clothing, golly-gee, i dont think thats possible!" There you go, big-boy. Thats called thinking for youself. Feels good, doesnt it?

To sum up: Death of civlians=bad, whether its due to WP or bullets. Any deliberate tageting of civilians should be investigated and punished. However, WP called down on terrorists (Or Iraqi Minutemen, if you prefer), is OK. And as for your confused assertion that the white house was lying...doesnt it seem stupid to lie about something that was published in the Army's own publication? I think you are the one that is confused, son.

Posted by paul smith at December 12, 2005 06:04 AM

I'm guessing frantic search since your link isn't from a primary source. "Democracy Now"?
It's a transcript, rightwingnut liar.

When Boylen refers to "people", do you think,I mean really try to wrap your head around this here, he might be referring to civilians?
Unless the opposition is composed of aliens from outer space, I assume "people" means, well, people. But maybe not. It certainly would explain why the U.S. military has felt free to torture enemy combatants and civilians. You know, the old subhuman thing. Very Republican concept.

So if you knowingly target civilians with this, then yes, it is a war crime, and here he is stating that no "people", as in civilians, were deliberately targeted by WP.
The military spokesliar said "people," not "civilians." In any case, I believe the U.S. military targeted civilians. The evidence shows it. According to the 3d Geneva Convention, you're supposed to take care not to use incendiary weapons within concentrations of civilians. There were 30,000+ civilians in Fallujah. The U.S. used incendiaries anyway.

I think they intended to massacre people. Of course, I realize that you don't think Iraqis are people. You think they're subhuman. I don't.

o sum up: Death of civlians=bad, whether its due to WP or bullets.
Torture is bad, too, but you're all in favor of that. By equating WP and bullets, you show that you don't care about the Geneva Conventions. New American Slogan: "War Crimes R Us."

Any deliberate tageting of civilians should be investigated and punished.
Look, at least have the stones to stand up and say you're okay with Iraqis being massacred. What is it about wingnutus americanus that makes him congenitally unable to tell the truth about anything whatsoever? Come on, the Romans slaughtered people without a second thought, so why not us?

doesnt it seem stupid to lie about something that was published in the Army's own publication?
Yes and no. If the public wasn't so distracted and gullible, yes it would be stupid.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at December 12, 2005 10:00 AM

Lol. Lamest. Fisking. Ever.

Come on Kolb, seriously, is that the best you can do? I expected better...oh well.
You know, its funny, you are the only one here talking about Iraqi's being subhuman. Nobody else here has mentioned it, cause frankly it never occurred to them to put Iraqi's in any category other than human. And I like how you try to confuse the issue further by bringing in torture from outta nowhere. Nice try. Better consult your little moonbat playbook on "How Not to Get Your Ass Handed to You in an On-line Thread", cause you need the help.

Posted by paul smith at December 12, 2005 05:06 PM

Don't get sucked in by Willy. I posted this on an earlier thread, but I'll do it again. Conversation with Willy...

Willy: Your momma's fat.

Any sane person: No she isn't.

Willy: See, you just proved my point. By attacking me, you proved your mom's fat, which is surprising b/c of all her goosestepping to chimpybushitler's war drum.

Any sane person: I didn't attack you, I simply said she isn't fat.

Willy: See you just proved my point again wingnut. If she really wasn't fat you would have posted a picture, but then again, any picture you post would be a fake Cheney/Haliburton right wing scam bushbot, which proves she is fat.

www.obsureunrelatedlink.com

Just ignore the child and it will go away. I have been sucked in too, and I know it's hard to ignore this asshat, but he likes hijacking sites with his completely idiotic comments and links.

Willy, you can go ahead and reply with the same lame mantra as last time, or you can go away.

Posted by rick at December 12, 2005 11:25 PM

rick: Actually, there's a valid reason to engage a troll. If his responses help your cause more than it helps the troll's.

I know people who have had their minds changed by reading Usenet flamewars. Simply because one side was rational enough that it encouraged them to do a bit more research on the subject and became convinced that side was correct... and it didn't hurt that the other side acted like... well, like Kolb tends to do when people don't immediately agree with him.

I believe the metaphor used to describe people like Kolb is that of Wile E. Coyote. Genius. With his ACME LinkSpewer of DOOOM machine.

Posted by Patrick Chester at December 13, 2005 09:30 AM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(33) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)