I've hesitated to show images of this sort on this site. I do so to illustrate the horror of Bush's war, and to make a larger point.
On Daily Kos and elsewhere, you may read lengthy discussions about whether the use of white phosphorus as a weapon against civilians violates treaty. The argument comes down to the question of whether WP qualifies a chemical weapon; Kos himself seems to be under the mistaken impression that it does not.
To my mind, this question has been resolved beyond the point of intelligent debate. The United States ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997, back when sane people still had some say in this land. The Convention's definition of the term "toxic chemical" offers inescapable wording:
2. "Toxic Chemical" means:Peter Kaiser, the head of the organization administering the CWC, made clear that WP counts as a chemical weapon under the terms of this convention. Anyone who says otherwise should explain why Kaiser is not qualified to speak on behalf of the CWC.
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
Americans cannot escape the fact that our soldiers have used chemical weapons. We went to war for fear that Saddam Hussein might want to use chemical weapons.
The commanders who ordered use of WP against civilians in Fallujah can, and should, be tried as war criminals.
Some have argued that progressives should avoid calling for the course of action I just advocated. Some still believe that WP technically qualifies as an incendiary, not as a chemical weapon.
I hold with those who say the time has come to make our charges boldly. Force the right-wingers to hide behind abstruse arguments.
Let us borrow a play from Rove's book. Rove (according to James Moore's Bush's Brain) believes that political campaigns should be run as though the audience were watching television with the sound turned off. Visuals overpower the verbal.
In this post, I've shown a couple of examples of the available visual evidence. Let the rightwingers try to explain it away. Let them try to counter the impact by resorting to fussy definitions and strained qualifications.
Let them try.
7 comments:
Yes, Yes, YES we must hit these bastards hard, without apology. Democrats must stop being pussies and must fight for our country and what's made us great through our history: Honor, Truth, Justice, Fairness. Thank you for helping take our fight to the fascists!
Well said, Joseph. Personally, I'm sick of arguments crafted at 50,000 feet, with no consideration for ground-level consequences. Our government has become a force of evil under the current administration, making life worse for citizens and non-citizens alike.
It's time to transfer power to politicians who don't view life as a zero-sum game.
Myxzptlk
I submit that the reaction that burned human skin to a crisp and yet had no reaction to the clothing the victim was wearing could indeed be called a "Chemical Weapon".
Joseph was telling me that there are those that would construe a bullet as a chemical weapon as the elements can be found on the periodic table. But I challenge back that it really isn't the metal that is causing the death of the victim, but the forced penetration of the metal into the body.
This White Phosphorus is nasty stuff. I propose to whomever believes that we should be engaging in warcraft of this variety that they should forever burn in hell from white phosphorus burns.
::Stepping off of my soap box::
Political Vandal
The tide has clearly turned against the administration. If you read the current issue of Newsweek, and know how lenient it has been on Bushco, it will amaze you how many articles snarl at the administration's heels.
(Note: I asked Newsweek to cancel my subscription many months ago, but they say that they can't!)
This country of ours will burn in hell if we don't try these neocons as war criminals. I do believe that we are approaching a fork in the road--the one on the right leading to fascism (which, IMO, must ultimately fail and plunge us into anarchy), the one on the left leading to a virtual civil war, in which the fundamentalist/neocons are crushed like bugs. Neither of these paths will be pleasant. But our national soul is lost if we do not take the latter one.
It's time to transfer power to politicians who don't view life as a zero-sum game.
Zero-sum games went out with von Neuman, man.
It's all about Nash's Equilibrium and game theory today, baby.
Just look who won the Nobel in Economics this year; more game theory guys.
Understand game theory, and you will gain valuable insights into how the elites think.
Remember John Nash's game? That is what they are playing now, and Nash called it "Fuck You, Buddy".
That game is now being used as a model for many things.
Anonymous, please offer a good link to such new game theories. Your comment is interesting!
Also, note lll's suggestion that instead of "anonymous", a moniker be chosen, so as to differentiate when replying.
I'm pretty late into this discussion, but maybe someone will read it. This is all pretty infantile complaining. These weapons conventions make war into a sort of game that is played by rules. Thus they help _sustain_ the institution of war.
U.S. leaders should be tried as war criminals, if not at home (where they could face the death penalty) than at the Hague or similarly. They should _not_ be tried, however, for killing people horribly, thus implying that there is a 'good' form of war, in which only 'soldiers' die but not from gases or germs. Does nobody learn _anything_ from watching Star Trek? War _ought_ to be too horrible to live with, and civilians _should_ be vulnerable, so they will not want to have wars (the way they _do_ in the U.S.A.). U.S. leaders should be tried, but for starting a war with a goal of land conquest. The people who started it must be brought to justice.
Post a Comment