PDA

View Full Version : Phosphorus Bomb



FunGus1968
11-13-2005, 09:26 AM
Hello folks.

There's an interesting military related website that I visit called Global Security.org.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html

They have an article on phosphorus bombs which includes a few photos. When I saw them I instanttly thought of IL2.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/wp-h57483.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/wp-h00924.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/wp-HD-SN-99-02118.jpg

russ.nl
11-13-2005, 09:33 AM
You want to know what white fosfor does? Look at this than. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">To late.</span>

Zyzbot
11-13-2005, 09:45 AM
Why does every topic on this forum have to turn into a political debate?

russ.nl
11-13-2005, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Zyzbot:
Why does every topic on this forum have to turn into a political debate?

You are doing that, I just show something where you can see the effect of white fosfor. Who uses it is not what I'm trying to show.

WarWolfe_1
11-13-2005, 10:03 AM
I know Sherman Tanks used it to "Fake" Tiger Tank crews in to thinking they were on fire. Phosphorus Greneades are very effective as well, good for burning out gun barrels, setting anything that is wet on fire, and they also have a terrible effect on the human body!

Airmail109
11-13-2005, 10:08 AM
Jesus Christ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif......I supported our PM who took us to that war...(Iraq)...that videos...upsetting..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif....**** em...never again...civilians killed...their bodys melted but clothes intact...what ****ing weapon does that?

FI_Willie
11-13-2005, 10:19 AM
Can't argue that "willy pete" isn't bad stuff. It is.

As for that film? Other than being REALLY slow to buffer, their facts are BS at the beginning.

In 1972, there was NO use of naplam by US forces. The use of napalm had been stopped because of "humanitarian" reasons. Another item that was not being used was "flechettes" for the same reason.

The Skyraiders shown dropping that stuff were phased out by the USN prior to 72 also. I'm not sure when the AF stopped flying them.

I was there.

Bremspropeller
11-13-2005, 10:20 AM
Any weapon that is filled with "white phosphor" as the video says.

Bongokid
11-13-2005, 12:48 PM
sickening,

the 'inverted fireworks' are especially impressive

Some of these photos should be sent to the brillant engineers who designed these weapons.

russ.nl
11-13-2005, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Bongokid:
sickening,

the 'inverted fireworks' are especially impressive

Some of these photos should be sent to the brillant engineers who designed these weapons.

Indeed!!!!

anarchy52
11-13-2005, 01:57 PM
So, chemical weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq after all...

danjama
11-13-2005, 01:59 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

IBTL

anarchy52
11-13-2005, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

IBTL
True:
1) this is not the place
2) we all know who the mods are and which flag they wave

I was VERY disturbed by that movie.

Zyzbot
11-13-2005, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
So, chemical weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq after all...

You pretend that they were not there before?

1970: Chemical weapon production research begins in Iraq
1971: Chemical warfare research begins in Iraq
1980: Iraq invades Iran, touching off 8 year war in which both sides use chemical weapons.

1983: Iraq uses mustard gas against Iran
1984: Iraq uses tabun on the battlefield
1987: Iraq uses chemical weapons against 20 civilian villages
1988: Iraqi poison agents used against Kurdish town of Halabja

CheeseWeaver
11-13-2005, 02:13 PM
I used WP weapons back in the military. Smoke hand grenades that is. i actually accidentally set fire to my captains uniform while we were practicing.
at least in Sweden Phosphorous is used in many smoke/illumination shells, so i guess that makes us one of the rogue states with WMD:s.

disgusting footage. war is hell. good thing we've been out of it for 200 years.

danjama
11-13-2005, 02:15 PM
Guys are we really gonna have this discussion?

danjama
11-13-2005, 02:15 PM
and by the way that video should not be here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

anarchy52
11-13-2005, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
So, chemical weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq after all...

You pretend that they were not there before?

1970: Chemical weapon production research begins in Iraq
1971: Chemical warfare research begins in Iraq
1980: Iraq invades Iran, touching off 8 year war in which both sides use chemical weapons.

1983: Iraq uses mustard gas against Iran
1984: Iraq uses tabun on the battlefield
1987: Iraq uses chemical weapons against 20 civilian villages
1988: Iraqi poison agents used against Kurdish town of Halabja </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guess who they got them from?
Hint (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/)

WMDs weren't found after Iraq claimed they were destroyed. Not after years of search. Nobody claims the didn't have them, but WMD threat was a cheap excuse for agression.
Let's not forget who has the largest stockpile of WMDs. And used them. On civilians.

danjama
11-13-2005, 02:21 PM
Oh for gods sake http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Im going http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Zyzbot
11-13-2005, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
So, chemical weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq after all...

You pretend that they were not there before?

1970: Chemical weapon production research begins in Iraq
1971: Chemical warfare research begins in Iraq
1980: Iraq invades Iran, touching off 8 year war in which both sides use chemical weapons.

1983: Iraq uses mustard gas against Iran
1984: Iraq uses tabun on the battlefield
1987: Iraq uses chemical weapons against 20 civilian villages
1988: Iraqi poison agents used against Kurdish town of Halabja </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guess who they got them from?
Hint (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/)

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They got them from France, UK, USA , Russia and a few other sources.


In fact, Iraq's 1998 weapons declaration to the United Nations submitted to weapons inspectors showed the following sources for chemical weapons:

Germany - 14 companies
Netherlands - 3 companies
Switzerland - 3 companies
France - 2 companies
Austria - 2 companies
United States - 2 companies

Friendly_flyer
11-13-2005, 02:33 PM
Guys, we can all agree that phosphorus weapons are horribly effective, especially against "soft" targets and civilians. We can also agree that such weapons have been used against such targets with predictable horrible results. I say we live it at that.

I do not miss phosphorus bombs in the sim, just like I don't miss nuclear bombs.

BfHeFwMe
11-13-2005, 03:55 PM
Cheap a@@ commies, can you possibly get a slower connection? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Toten_Waffe
11-13-2005, 04:26 PM
I agree that Phosphorus Bombs are a pretty nasty weapon and have horrendous and indescriminate effects.....but I can happily say that sitting here in my nice comfy chair, sipping a cup of tea a million mles from combat. However if I was in some stinking dug-out with people shooting at me and killing my buddies I would probably be happy for the use of a weapon that reduced that number of people shooting at me and got me home safer and quicker.

I imagine if in 1945, if you asked a member of the public how do you feel about dropping a nuclear bomb, knowing its effects their answer would be very different from a marine on a beach at Okinawa or some other godforesaken place.

As a civi its easy to take the moral high ground and preach away....as far as im concerned let the warriors decide what weapons to use. Whether the soldiers agree with the war in a political sense or not they have a job to do, and if using white phospher makes their job any safer for them then they will use it......such is the way of war unfortunately. No one ever said it was nice....I just wish people would differentiate between the individual soldiers doing a job than the governments or regimes that happened to send them.

P.s that video was the most shoddy pieceocrap I have ever seen, cobbled together out of old unrelated and irrelevant footage. Lets run through the cliche check list

random stock footage of "evil" americans--check
whiney arab music---check
footage of dead "civilians"---check
"independant" film crew--check (always seem to be there at the right time)

J_Weaver
11-13-2005, 07:39 PM
Its a sad fact that much of the modern world has forgotten the horrors of war. People die in horrid, nasty ways; unfortunately this includes civilians. Sometimes, it just seems like people expect no one to get hurt.

War is at best barbarism. Its glory is all moonshine...War is hell.

~General William Tecumseh Sherman

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

FunGus1968
11-13-2005, 08:07 PM
Well guys, my intention was not to start a political debate. I'm new to these forums (at least as a member) and I just wanted to share the pictures.

In IL2, bombing ships is a fun and challenging part of the game. But one has to separate reality from fiction or else it would be impossible to play.

Again, I didn't start this thread to stir anything up.

J_Weaver
11-13-2005, 09:00 PM
You didn't do anything m8. The pot got stirred after russ posted that horrid video.

Friendly_flyer
11-14-2005, 08:31 AM
In IL2, bombing ships is a fun and challenging part of the game. But one has to separate reality from fiction or else it would be impossible to play.


Now, if only Oleg found a way to make the Mistel work properly...

russ.nl
11-14-2005, 09:43 AM
Ok guys, the clip is gone. I think you're getting a wrong image of me.
As J_Weaver set before, "Its a sad fact that much of the modern world has forgotten the horrors of war."
This is why I posted the clip. One of the things we should have learned from WW1 is not to use chemical weapons. (ofcourse every bomb is made up from different chemicals but you understand what I mean) People forget what war is and so it is important that you see what war does. If you like it or not. Because if people would know what war is nobody would support it any more.
I really think WW2 was our last warning. We should have learned something from that. You would think that in this "sivelysed" world of ours, war would be something from the past.
Well enuf about that, I could go on for hours about this.

(Yes I know, some wrong spelling)

Andrew OConnor
11-14-2005, 11:26 AM
Indeed it is disgustin, a terrible way to go, odd really how technology has been advanced for the sole purpose of killing other people. eg. from Huricane to Vanpire, Bf-109-D to Komet, rifle to assault rifle. Wars certanly have accelerated technology, granted this Phosphorous is terrible, but is that any worse than a Neutron Bomb? But, who is wrong for using it? Designer, builder, commander or troops on the ground?

i must agree that that clip is most disturbing, and i would advise against watching it to be totally honest unless you have seen thins kind of thing before.

sad, sad business is war

EDIT: Russ.nl. you posting this footage does not mean that you caused what happened on it to happen, and just as you have removed it, it does not mean it will stop. Facts to not cease to exist because they are ingnored. I am pleased that you removed it, but, i certanly dont think your some kind of meglomaniac or war monger.

If i was in some foxhole, and was trying to defend the relm, i would probbably use the weapon if it would halt the attack.

Airmail109
11-14-2005, 11:47 AM
I just cant believe the "Civilised" west that I live in could do that....am i right in saying that using chemical weapons is against international human rights? then we have the sodding cheek to go over to Iraq....blow the **** out of them with chemical weapons....killing many more civilians than necessary.....(its not like this was even a necessary ****ing war)......then preach to the Iraqis about human rights and democracy....im **** glad that video was posted....I hope some people realise what war is like now.....imagine ok...that some ****** of a leader...from a foreign country decided to drop chemical weapons on your house while your kids were in it....


If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it'all the proof I need
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq

"If i was in some foxhole, and was trying to defend the relm, i would probbably use the weapon if it would halt the attack."

and what realm was being defended? the stuff cant be targeted directly at combatants unlike laser guided weapons or a variety of other munitions. but nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooo someone decided theyd like to use a more "overkill" weapon....when they could have done the job with a much less destructive weapon

now i can imagine some of the responses to this "imagine ok...that some ****** of a leader...from a foreign country decided to drop chemical weapons on your house while your kids were in it...."

Oh i have a gun or we have a bigger army than those peasants...we could blow your *** sky high if you did anything to us....well please refrain from saying that.....you people are ******ing the progress of humanity...violance doesnt solve violance it keeps going round in circles and escalating...did they teach you this at school?....

Sorry this thread has made me go as one would say "Ape sh1t"

Who ever gave the go ahead for that weapon to be used should be held accountable for it....and punished according to international human rights.

berg417448
11-14-2005, 12:13 PM
I know that you are upset but WP is not considered to be a chemical weapon and your argument would be more effective if you used the correct terminology. WP is considered to be an incendiary weapon. Of cource, this makes no difference to the victim but it makes a difference to all of those concerned with technicalities. Use of WP is not prohibited by the chemical weapons convention.

Airmail109
11-14-2005, 12:15 PM
Wll my argument for that is that it should be. However the American soldiers on that video regard it as a chemical weapon? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

georgeo76
11-14-2005, 01:18 PM
Every weapon I can think of on the modern battlefield is chemical at least in part, cept bayonets. I don't see how being burned up is somehow worse or less humane that bullets or bombs. What method of killing is preferential?

Tater-SW-
11-14-2005, 01:29 PM
I'm all for WP bombs in game. I want M17 and M19 cannisters for the US heavy bombers, too. What's the point of a B-29 that can't drop a gajillion incendiaries? I want M47 Kenney Cocktails for my B-25!

http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/K_bombs_sm.jpg

tater

Airmail109
11-14-2005, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by georgeo76:
Every weapon I can think of on the modern battlefield is chemical at least in part, cept bayonets. I don't see how being burned up is somehow worse or less humane that bullets or bombs. What method of killing is preferential?

Because Phospherous kills indescriminantly....you cant target a subject accurately....that stuff spreads out over a wide area...u cant hide from it in builidng or by laying low if your a civilian....it comes into contact with your skin and melts it...it gets into your respiritory system and melts you from the inside....a nasty way to die dont you think? HE explovises cause less harm than this stuff to surrounding populations...at least with HE you can take cover.....in Fallujha u couldnt hide in your house to take cover from phosperhous and you couldnt run from the stuff as youd get shot by infantrymen and snipers.

Also i think its sick that you can talk about what way of killing Iraqis is humane whilst your in your nice cushy chair at home....would be very nice if the iraqis got a say....to see if they wanted to get bombed by the stuff

Its similar to Tony Blairs intelligent idea of dropping cluster bombs on residential areas....

blackpulpit1970
11-14-2005, 02:04 PM
Its not a war on terror as the media shows everyday, it is a war of terror commited by our hypocrite leaders. Global conquest...period.

Hetzer_II
11-14-2005, 02:06 PM
Because Phospherous kill indescriminantly...

But thats the case for many weapons..

Look at the CBU´s..... look at dump bombs...

But hey.. good to see that at least some people start to think about...

Airmail109
11-14-2005, 02:14 PM
And....the use of CBUs in residential areas is strictly illegal and Iron bombs are rarely used now. Most iron bombs are now fitted with laser guidance attachments....but at least you can take cover from shrapnel....you cant with phospherous.

Next time read the rest of my post

arcadeace
11-14-2005, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by FunGus1968:
Well guys, my intention was not to start a political debate. I'm new to these forums (at least as a member) and I just wanted to share the pictures.

In IL2, bombing ships is a fun and challenging part of the game. But one has to separate reality from fiction or else it would be impossible to play.

Again, I didn't start this thread to stir anything up.

No probs mate, welcome to the forum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I think you may wonder in time how certian members can possibly enjoy this sim lol.

LEBillfish
11-14-2005, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Because Phospherous kills indescriminantly....you cant target a subject accurately....that stuff spreads out over a wide area...u cant hide from it in builidng or by laying low if your a civilian....it comes into contact with your skin and melts it...it gets into your respiritory system and melts you from the inside........

No....No.....& No..........

It destroys what it has been dropped on...Drop it on a military target..that...civilian...that... Do you think if you start carpet bombing with HE a civilian populated area it only destroys/kills military targets?

It "burns" through via heat and/or chemical reactivity. Sure, things can melt from both but a human does not.....Now corrode like with a base or acid?...sure....Disolve like with a base or acid?...sure.....Burn....sure....But you don't "melt".

In any case tell someone stabbed, shot, napalmed, irradiated, blown up...etc. Phosphorous is worse. Point blank it's all bad.
Try reading some of the stories of "basket men"...WHo had a HE shell go off near and were not touched by a single bit of shrapnel but the concussion caused all their bones to shatter and eardrums to burst, making them blind and so on.....So destroyed they amputated all their limbs, and hung them on hooks from the wall to not get bed sores....Unable to move, see, hear, or talk for the rest of their lives.

Just another weapon with only one way to insure it is never used again.........end war.

Just another terrible thing made by your friends at Acme Inc. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BfHeFwMe
11-14-2005, 08:38 PM
Falls under the logic of making safer bullets to do your killing with. When you've stepped into the target zone what difference does the weapon type make? End results always the same, your day to die.

UBI's Barbie and Ken forum might be a bit further down the list, may be more up your alley.

Airmail109
11-15-2005, 10:31 AM
Allow me to try to clear things up, if I can.

First, I think it should be a stated goal of United States policy to not melt the skin off of children.

As a natural corollary to this goal, I think the United States should avoid dropping munitions on civilian neighborhoods which, as a side effect, melt the skin off of children. You can call them "chemical weapons" if you must, or far more preferably by the more proper name of "incendiaries". The munitions may or may not precisely melt the skin off of children by setting them on fire; they do melt the skin off of children, however, through robust oxidation of said skin on said children, which is indeed colloquially known as "burning". But let's try to avoid, for now, the debate over the scientific phenomenon of exactly how the skin is melted, burned, or caramelized off of the aforementioned children. I feel quite confident that others have put more thought into the matter of how to melt the skin off of children than I have, and will trust their judgment on the matter.

Now, I know that we may be melting the skin off of children in order to give them freedom, or to prevent Saddam Hussein from possibly melting the skins off of those children at some future date. These are good and noble things to bring children, especially the ones who have not been killed by melting their skin.

I know, as well, that we do not drop "chemical weapons" on Iraq. We may, in the course of fighting insurgents in civilian neighborhoods, drop "incendiaries" or other airborne weaponry which may melt the skins off of children. In that this still can be classified as melting the skins off of children, I feel comfortable in stating that the United States should not condone the practice. (This may mean, when fighting in civilian neighborhoods, we take nuanced steps to avoid melting the skin off of children, such as not dropping munitions that melt the skin off of children.)

And I know it is true, there is some confusion over whether the United States was a signatory to the Do Not Melt The Skin Off Of Children part of the Geneva conventions, and whether or not that means we are permitted to melt the skin off of children, or merely are silent on the whole issue of melting the skin off of children.

But all that aside, there are very good reasons, even in a time of war, not to melt the skin off of children.


First, because the insurgency will inevitably be hardened by tales of American forces melting the skin off of children.

Second, because the civilian population will harbor considerable resentment towards Americans for melting the skin off of their children.

Third, BECAUSE IT ****ING MELTS THE SKIN OFF OF CHILDREN.

And, unless Saddam Hussein had a brigade or two consisting of six year olds, we can presume that children, like perhaps nine tenths or more of their immediate families, are civilians.
These are, admittedly, nuanced points. "But Airmail", I can hear many Americans say, "isn't it a natural byproduct of a war of preemption, er, I mean liberation, to melt the skin off of children?"

Why yes, yes it is. Melting the skin off of children is an inevitable part of urban warfare, which is one of the reasons that most military planners and foreign policy leaders prefer to avoid putting themselves in positions where melting the skin off of children comes into play. George Herbert Walker Bush, when contemplating whether or not to engage in the urban warfare that would, in all likelihood, melt the skin off of children by exposing United States forces to a situation where city defenders would be interspersed with those said civilians, choose the course of not putting his forces in a position where melting the skin off of children would prove necessary.

In any event, street fighting in neighborhoods where there are, indeed, children -- as is evidenced by their skin, lying over there -- may or may not be a wise military decision. But it is certainly true that the whole child-melting decision, pro or con, should be treated with some gravity, and perhaps methods of combat which do not melt the skin off of children should be considered.

Because melting the skin off of children, as it turns out, is a very good way to turn the opinion of the American population against a war in general


So in conclusion, I am going to come out, to the continuing consternation of Rush Limbaugh and pro-war supporters everywhere, as being anti-children-melting, as a matter of general policy.

Furthermore, I would suggest to the President of the United States that if you find yourself in the position where your on-the-ground forces find melting the skin off of children to be the preferable of all available options, your military outlook is well and truly ****ed, and you might perhaps start considering alternative means of stabilizing the country.

Thank you for your time.

Oh libelfish when okay have we used unguided munitions on residential areas (except for our one escipade with cluster bombs).....Phospherous has a wider effect area than say a guiuded bomb.....or carpet bombed for that matter....oh shrapnel can cause scars....so being wounded as a child by shrapnel in my opinion is much more preferential to living with burn marks (which mainly happen around the face with phospherous)......you are scum

"White phosphorus munitions are intended to burn or firebomb the opponents, in other words, to effectively produce widespread damage but not kill the enemy." - source http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs103.html

georgeo76
11-15-2005, 10:48 AM
War is inevitably cruel and disturbing. These are the things we consider before going to war.

I understand why you are upset Aimail, but you are being naive.

There are no clean, safe, or humane wars. There is no kind way to kill people. The thought that somehow one kind of weapon or warfare is more humane than any other is ridiculous on it's face. Even if everyone followed the Geneva convention, even if all weapons killed you peacefully in your sleep, there would still be no degrees of warfare.

If you are not willing to melt the skin off $%^#ing children, then you should probably consider diplomacy.

Airmail109
11-15-2005, 10:52 AM
Okay im going to ask this...is one American soldiers life worth lets say 20 iraqi civilians...in my opinion no....they should have stormed Fallujha without dropping **** loads of incederies on it and suffered an increase in military casualties....you **** well chose to go there...the least you could do is try to minimize the civilian casualties

Se georgeo , you can carry out war and keep civilian casualties to a minimum...the use of incedery weapons is simply unessecary apart from maybe saving a few soldiers lives at the cost of dozens if not hundreds of civilians.....oh and there are more humane ways of killing people....thats why hanging people doesnt happen in the states anymore....they use more humane ways....a bullet to the head is far more humane than phospherous....

and anyway thats not my point....phospherous causes far worse injuries than shrapnel....period.....and the danger zone is greater...you can hide from shrapnel you cant hide from gas...id much rather have a shrapnel wound than live with 3 degree burns for the rest of my life

If you are willing to melt the skin off children you should not be part of the military....your a liability......maybe the SS would be more suited to someone who believed it was necessary

Grue_
11-15-2005, 11:04 AM
If everybody kept their temper there would be no war.

Hmm..

georgeo76
11-15-2005, 11:06 AM
You may be surprised to know that I opposed the war. Precisely because I understood the cost beforehand.

It is foolish to think that the cruelty can be exorcised from the process. If you are anti-children-skin-melting, then you must oppose war. otherwise your a hypocrite.

Airmail109
11-15-2005, 11:11 AM
I was using that to make a point. I was opposed to the war for other reasons. However i believe if it comes to war you should at LEAST try and minimise civilian casualties, the use of phospherous does not minimize it, it greatly increases it. The stuff is not needed, you can get the job done with other weapons with far smaller civilian casualties. This just symbolises what many would see in Europe as "American arrogance"....Eg "Ahhhhh we want the job done quickly so lets blow them to hell without thought for civilians"....its typical of their gunho attitude

Going by your logic we should have just flattened faljuha with a squadron of B52s.

georgeo76
11-15-2005, 11:18 AM
Fair enough Aimail. I understand what you are saying and I think I've made my point.

Airmail109
11-15-2005, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by georgeo76:
Fair enough Aimail. I understand what you are saying and I think I've made my point.

Point taken....anyway you put up a good argumet. (S) Hope i havnt offended you in anyway. (I get a bit firey in debates...sorry)

msalama
11-15-2005, 11:30 AM
Well I...

Ok, never mind. After being soooo preachy about things political around here, I can really only offer this:

There's nothing wrong with peace, love and understanding. Do you agree?

Airmail109
11-15-2005, 11:34 AM
yer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I think the storms over now? Is it safe?

LEBillfish
11-15-2005, 11:45 AM
I don't think Airmail has seen my other posts on war and prejudice has he? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

BTW, scum/slime and other assorted substances are quite often vast biological microscopic colonies.......I fall more under the genre of trash being just an individual...unless you meant like soap scum http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm just glad the British in fact all nations that can produce or buy never used Phosphorous or Incindiaries....ever...or still http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif...Uh huh......

huggy87
11-15-2005, 11:51 AM
Aimail101,
You love going on about how america should do this and america should not do that. First, the UK is just as heavily involved in Iraq as america and maybe you should point your finger at your own nation first. As an aside, my first combat mission ever was on sept 9 2001. We were escorting British aircraft to bomb an AAA site near Al Kut. Second, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. I was in both Iraq and Afghanistan and we went to extreme lenghts to avoid civilian casualties. Individual targets required approval from higher ups 1000 miles away. We often brought ordnance home because the target could not be significantly deconflicted from civilians.

huggy87
11-15-2005, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by georgeo76:
You may be surprised to know that I opposed the war. Precisely because I understood the cost beforehand.

It is foolish to think that the cruelty can be exorcised from the process. If you are anti-children-skin-melting, then you must oppose war. otherwise your a hypocrite.

Are we hypocrites if we oppose war but thoroughly enjoy war games?

LEBillfish
11-15-2005, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by huggy87:
Are we hypocrites if we oppose war but thoroughly enjoy war games?

Hippocrite!!.....What are you saying because I like flying this and Airmail insinuated I'm water borne that I have a big wide butt?

Freelancer-1
11-15-2005, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
...I have a big wide butt?

I think you better let me be the judge of that.

Post a picture. A thong would be apropos.

Airmail109
11-15-2005, 12:35 PM
Have you failed to notice that I accused Tony Blair (our PM if you people didnt know that) of ordering cluster bombs to be dropped on residential areas. Which he did. That was fairly big news when it hit the papers. I know the brits are just as heavily involved as you are and Im disgusted that our PM does not say anything about this. Hes a little puppy, unlike Thatcher who threw her wait around when dealing with the US...

I know we have used white phospherous in some previous wars, I was hoping we were a bit more civilised now....I wouldnt put it past us, seeing as we droped cluster bombs grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Huggy87 ok i accept a lot of the time you do try to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, but look what happend in fallujha.....and there are numerous reports of indescriminate bombing of residential areas in Iraq....hitting the hospital in Fallujha for example

|CoB|_Spectre
11-15-2005, 02:53 PM
It's really too bad this thread has degenerated from the original post to its present state. The debate of how relatively humane one weapon is over another would be amusing if one were to discount the obsurdity of such a discussion. I don't know what people expect, that a war can become so precise, so sterile that only combatants are affected? Particularly when some of those combatants purposely hide amongst non-combatants using them as shields, what would you expect? I shake my head in wonder at the naivete. Perhaps it's time to come to grips with the nature of the game that's being played here with all its history and all its implications. Down through the millinea, it is axiomatic that war is about killing people. Take stock, you may find you'd be more at peace with Candyland or the Gingerbread Man.

Airmail109
11-15-2005, 02:55 PM
The point i was trying to make spectre was you could at least try to minimise civilian casualties....they didnt in fallujha.

Skycat_2
11-15-2005, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by FI_Willie:
As for that film? Other than being REALLY slow to buffer, their facts are BS at the beginning.

In 1972, there was NO use of naplam by US forces. The use of napalm had been stopped because of "humanitarian" reasons. Another item that was not being used was "flechettes" for the same reason.

The Skyraiders shown dropping that stuff were phased out by the USN prior to 72 also. I'm not sure when the AF stopped flying them.

I was there.
From BBC News article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4517597.stm): "Vietnamese photographer Nick Ut describes the day in June 1972 when he photographed a nine-year-old girl, Kim Phuc, fleeing her village after a napalm attack - a picture that won him a Pulitzer prize." Another web article described the Napalm as a "South Vietnamese bomb (http://www.geogr.uni-goettingen.de/kus/personen/vn/vn-1972-napalm.htm)." The film says it was "thrown by the Americans," but then again erroneously genders Kim Phuc as a male so it appears they were sloppy with their fact checking.

I found this information (http://www.afa.org/magazine/gallery/a-1.asp) regarding the use of Skyraiders: "The Air Force flew Skyraiders in Vietnam until late 1972, when the aircraft were turned over to the South Vietnamese Air Force."

As for the aerial footage of the Napalm being dropped over Vietnam, the film only says that it is archival footage and doesn't give a specific date.

------------------
Transcript of opening 2:07 of film

(Images of low-flying airplane dropping firebombs on a village, and women and children running past the camera.)

Narrator: This is how a photo can speak about a war. In Vietnam, Kim Phrog, age 9, his naked, fragile body mutilated by the Napalm thrown by the Americans, running, arms outstretched to escape death. It is 1972 and the image will circle the globe over as evidence of a war that nobody won and that many have forgotten.

(Fade out. Fade in with "California Dreaming" and aerial footage of Napalm bombs falling to earth and exploding near huts.)

Narrator: Napalm -- a feature of that war. These scenes taken from the U.S. archives, now more than thirty years old. The results of this deadly device have been captured by military cameramen. At the moment of release, the bombs shiny, glowing bright blue from friction before impact and unleashing explosions of devastating proportion. The pilots would circle the forests and villages at low altitude without looking back to see the flames engulfing men, animals, vegetation and huts in their wake. These scenes are not part of a film but (reality?). The military cameramen even used slow motion to better document the bombs' potential. And the music the same as Marines would listen to on the radio describing the dream of the most beautiful place in the world, California, whilst the war destroys a country just as beautiful in Vietnam. These extraordinary images were unearthed from the archives only after decades for fear of causing a pacifist backlash. Only 3% of Vietnamese television services broadcast the scenes of violence but it was sufficient to turn many Americans against the war. The United Nations, in 1980, just after the horrendous images, banned the use of Napalm gas against civilians.

(Fade out. Music changes. Fade in to modern combat filmed through night vision devices.)

Narrator: We are here to speak to you about a battle of our time that no one was able to see, the most forbidable, bloody and mysterious. The one the Americans waged in Fallujah ...

Tater-SW-
11-16-2005, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Because Phospherous kills indescriminantly....you cant target a subject accurately....that stuff spreads out over a wide area...u cant hide from it in builidng or by laying low if your a civilian....it comes into contact with your skin and melts it...it gets into your respiritory system and melts you from the inside....a nasty way to die dont you think? HE explovises cause less harm than this stuff to surrounding populations...at least with HE you can take cover.....in Fallujha u couldnt hide in your house to take cover from phosperhous and you couldnt run from the stuff as youd get shot by infantrymen and snipers.

You can't take cover from a 2000lb JDAM, sorry. It hits your building, you die (unless you are in a hardedned shelter in which case you are not vulnerable to EITHER). It's an area effect weapon like cluster bombs are. We use those too, including area-denial munitions (small mines mixed in the cluster bomblets to prevent personell from entering the area).

WP doesn't get inside you and "melt you from the inside." As for ways to die, ANY way to die is a bad way to die, it's better not to die by taking the offer of evacuation for the weeks before when you knew your town was going to become a free-fire zone after the evac period was up.

tater

Tater-SW-
11-16-2005, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
I was using that to make a point. I was opposed to the war for other reasons. However i believe if it comes to war you should at LEAST try and minimise civilian casualties, the use of phospherous does not minimize it, it greatly increases it.

We try minimize civilian casualties by:

One: announcing our plan to attack WEEKS in advance, and providing for the complete evacuation of the future combat area for anyone who wishes to avoid being in a combat area. Any attacks would be far more effective if they could use surprise. They would also be far far safer for US ground troops. Instead, we telegraph our intentions, allowing the enemy to place IEDs, etc.

Two: targetting areas with enemy combatants specifically. We did not area bomb Fallujah, if we did the troops wouldn't have needed to go in period, we could have just Arclighted the place with B-52s.

WP is used for "shake and bake." Enemy is dug in safe from HE (short of really huge HE which would be LESS targetted than WP in area of effect). You hit that building with WP, driving him out of the cover into a hail of HE.

tater

Capt.LoneRanger
11-16-2005, 11:13 AM
Just to heat up the discussion and put a little light on the "we never used WP since early Vietnam":

The US Defense Ministery admitted today, they used WP during the last battle in Iraq against enemy targets. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Bongokid
11-16-2005, 11:35 AM
I agree with you on most points Aimail101, however i think the coallition forces are stuck now :

- There is no way the guerrillas in Iraq can stand a 'lets meet up in the field' type of combat against the coallition, their firepower is negligible compared to them.

Therefore they have to fight as all forces facing such odds have always fought : sabotage, traps, ambush, what we call terrorism (sometimes it has also been called resistance).

There is no way for a conventional army to eradicate such activities without causing considerable civilian casualties, just because you can't recognize combattants from non combattants easily, and its basic tactics for the combatants to mix with non combattants. The fact that many are ready to die (suicide bombers) to inflict damage to the coalition is an even more aggravating factor.

I dont know for sure but i think if the coalition used the rules of engagement used by most police forces in our countries (in which you have to be fired upon to be able to shoot, and maybe more), the number of dead soldiers would be enormous.

As you described it it is a vicious circle because more 'melted children' means more people ready to transform into insurgents.

So the coalition is stuck there, the civilians die, the children melt, the coalition soldiers die without seeing their enemy, a beatifull mess.

What makes me sick is that the only guys smiling in that huge mess are the corporations selling and designing the 'melt children in ten easy steps' weapons.

wow maybe we should rename the thread the vent off thread.

Bongokid

Airmail109
11-16-2005, 11:54 AM
Okay Tater, many of those civilians in Fallujha didnt leave because they had no where to go.
The allied foreces should have had the capacity to set up refugee camps to hold the entire population of the city, and what do you make of the accusations of childeren being shot by snipers and such? I know this happens in war but it seems the Americans did a much better job of minimising civilians casualties except in Fallujha, where it all seems to have fallen to bits. How the media was censored (not being allowed inside fallujha in the aftermath, and only a few reporters allowed to go with American soliders)....all this makes the whole operation stink and seem supicious...I mean it may not have been as bad as many of the reports coming out....but someone screwed up by not allowing many jornalists in if any....meaning it was UNMONITORED....god knows what could have gone on....this leads to lots of rumours...though many of the reports coming out to seem fairly reliable.

Tater thats the problem, most of the people hiding in buildings were in fact civilians....then the WP came along....those who stayed were as good as dead, those who ran out of the buildings were shot up by soldiers.

Then you bombed the hospital for some reason. Shot doctors trying to help the wounded, shot people who were on the ground and incapacitated and various other things.

The whole **** war stank, civilians who were living normal lives had their lives ruined. Because of a war for the official reason of removing WMD which we had sold to them. Then we dont find any...hmmmmmm.....its as if theyre lives arnt worth as much than say western peoples. No one gives a **** if we kill some "wogs" in a far away country. We werent moraaly right....as perhaps in world war 2 we were.

I think this somes up my feelings " What makes me sick is that the only guys smiling in that huge mess are the corporations selling and designing the 'melt children in ten easy steps' weapons." - Bongokid

Viper2005_
11-16-2005, 01:55 PM
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it."

Robert E. Lee

"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country."

General George S. Patton

"Don't talk to me about atrocities in war; all war is an atrocity"

Lord Kitchener

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."

William Tecumseh Sherman


Some of these photos should be sent to the brillant engineers who designed these weapons.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Engineers provide technology which can be used for good or evil.

Politicians (for whom, in a democratic society the electorate is ultimately responsible - and yes that does mean YOU) decide how to use that technology for better or worse.

To blame the engineer, or indeed the soldier is to pass the buck. We all bear a corporate responsibility for the actions of our leaders; they act, afterall, in our name.

The buck stops with each and every one of us in equal measure.

That said, to paint the present "War on Terror", or indeed any other war for that matter as a "good" or "evil" thing is to commit a gross oversimplification. At the end of the day it all comes down to your point of view, which is most likely unique.

In the time it's taken me to write this post, over 200 children under 5 have died of preventable diseases. That's about 1 every 3 seconds. About 42% of those deaths have taken place in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Those deaths could be prevented by the simple application of money. The technology is sitting there on the shelf ready to go. I wonder how many of the bleeding hearts who have commented about the evils of white phosphorus on this thread will be prepared to significantly reduce their standard of living and donate the proceeds to saving those lives...

How many children do you think you could save from preventable disease for the price of a new rig?

Interesting how your point of view can affect the argument isn't it?
[/rant]

LEBillfish
11-16-2005, 02:12 PM
"The Beast"......and his/Kenny's Cocktails.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/phosphorous-bomb.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/pre1_topl.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/pre1_botr.jpg


Japanese "Anti-Bomber Bomb" in use......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/Phosphorousbomb.jpg


I don't know about you all........But this conversation is making me feel all warm and toasty now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

249th_Harrier
11-16-2005, 02:26 PM
If you want to take positive action for global human rights, please donate or volunteer with Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch. If you are concerned about the direction of your government, please donate or volunteer with the political party or political action group of your choice. Many people do these things, people who have families and full time jobs. This is the way to make a difference. Political rants, especially on non-political message boards, don't accomplish anything, and more often than not they become ugly and unpleasant.

Tater-SW-
11-16-2005, 02:30 PM
If we are using it in a targeted way, and not as an area effect weapon over an open city, I have not the least bit of problem with it. Get back to me when we carpet bomb a city with the goal of utter destruction with no warning, then we can talk. That's what a "concentration" of civilians means. If we take aim at a Saturday market on purpose, for example, that would be a crime. Hitting abuilding where we've been fired on is a different story.

No where to go? Lesse, If I were told I could grab my wife and daughter and leave NOW with what I could easily hump in my backpack, or stay home and be in a combat zone, guess what, I'd leave. A penniless refugee, or very likely dead. I leave. They had weeks. Anyone with a child who stayed there under any conditions was insane, criminally negligent, or the supporter of the insurgents.

BTW, the insurgents picked that city because it was friendly to them, it wasn't a random choice. I don't suppose you considered for even a second that the people that stayed might have largely been family of insurgents? What about insurgents firing at our forces from buildings they KNOW are occupied by civilians? The enemy chooses to purposely blur the distinction between combatant, and non-combatant. The end result is invariably tragic loss of innocent lives. It's no different than placing a AAA gun on the roof of an apartment block, then complaining that the building was destroyed. The japanese did the same thing with red-cross marked hospitals, I have images of some with AAA batteries among the hospital buildings.

tater

msalama
11-16-2005, 02:32 PM
Harrier: agreed 100% or more

Bongokid
11-16-2005, 03:12 PM
Dear Viper,

be sure that i took all the opportunities that was given to me as a canadian citizen to try oppose any action from my government related to collaboration with the coallition in Iraq or Afghanistan (with mitigated succes i agree).

Depreciating humanist thoughts by pure cynicism is not very usefull and many more people 'with bleeding hearts' than you think are actually actively involved in attenuating the impact of our western democracies on the rest of the world, indeed at the cost of a proportion of 'their standards of living' as you mentionned.

@harrier

I do believe positive action includes discussion with peers to convince them of the righteousness of one's view, and i do believe, this, with a certain effort, can remain civil.

moreover, it is as simple as not clicking on a thread to be able to avoid getting involved in
a discussion we have no interest in.

Cheers,

Bongokid

arcadeace
11-16-2005, 03:24 PM
I read about this first from the Independent. They, like everyone else I've read since, base the Falluhah story on an "Italian documentary with witnesses." These folks like them...


Yesterday, demonstrators organized by the Italian communist newspaper, Liberazione, protested outside the US Embassy in Rome.

And considering the disposition of many who are trying to bring this story to legitimacy and their veiws on the war agaisnt terrorism, sources should be seriously questioned.

How many saw the film? I did. I took the time to download on a 48k connection. Its out there and I strongly suggest to any who really want to believe US servicemen want to burn babies to take the time to search, find it, watch it, sit back, and think. In my opinion it offers little in the way of indisputable evidence - gruesome photographs of "non-combatants" (who might or might not be innocents) prove only that people died in Fallujah, but, of course, say little about the cause of death, though a dramatic "confirmation" is presented by a veteran of Iraq War I. Who is this veteran?

Staying with the Independent, they go back and forth on opposing viewpoints, but ultimately have no problem backing reporters most of whom look to be Arab. Anyway, they then chose a strong closing for their case citing Jeff Englehart, the veteran. He's cited by every source I've read about this as legitimate confirmation of US "atrocities." Remember that name. I'm not gonna waist my time explaining this Fraud but even after a pile of evidence recently exposing his lies, greed and mental health, antagonistic media have no problem claiming his legitimacy. I think if any of you know what Englehart is about, and you were honest, you would not give him an ounce of consideration.

It has been acknowledged phosphorous weaponry was used, but, under certain conditions, to effectively take away terrorist advantages and reduce the risk to our men. After all the reports of supposed atrocities by 'unbiased reporters' don't think for a moment our men are not as careful and reasonable as is possible not to harm innocents. Because of such care they've incurred numerous deaths and injuries.

They're fighting Islamo-facists, with no regard for human life including their own. They will enslave and kill all who oppose. Its increasingly difficult to believe many still opposing our ongoing efforts care, one iota, regarding the fate of the Iraqis. Instead of being overly dramatic using the word children... be dramatic with "no to jihad," "no to suicide bombing," "no to tyranny," "yes to freedom," "yes, to aspirations, rights, and a life removed from darkness." "Yes to all those who put their life on the line for the future of the once enslaved."

If you want to send a message, send it to governments and groups worldwide supporting terrorism.

Airmail109
11-16-2005, 03:32 PM
Viper so the fact that many childeren dieing accross the world from preventable diseases, gives one an excuse to dismiss those killed by violance.

Tater in Iraq, its quite a lot harder to pick up and leave beacuse of food supplies, water etc. These people would be stuck in arid sub desert conditions (not good). 1/3rd of the population stayed behind, are you telling me that 1/3rd of the population were connected with insurgents just because they decided it would be safe to hide in their homes.

They also hit that building because doctors were trating civilians and insurgents, most doctors though would agree that you would not leave people to die just because you didnt believe in the same cause. The doctors there were doing what any doctor would do, treat people with injuries who needed it.

As i said earlier "The whole **** war stank, civilians who were living normal lives had their lives ruined. Because of a war for the official reason of removing WMD which we had sold to them. Then we dont find any...hmmmmmm.....its as if theyre lives arnt worth as much than say western peoples. No one gives a **** if we kill some "wogs" in a far away country. We werent moraaly right....as perhaps in world war 2 we were."

@ Arcadeace

Why were only a few journalists only allowed to travel with troops?

Now with all these accusations of attrocities dont you think they should at least be followed up by some sort of independent formal investigation?

Secondly, these terrorists/insurgents have been radicalised because of Iraq. The iraqis are getting "freedom" (partial as the government is very corrupt) at the cost of tens of thousands of lives some estimates run it at hundreds of thousands.

Arcadace take note of this:

These people have no historical/cultural basis for democracy. You cannot impose change over a few years, as many tory politicians observed in the French revoloution. Change should be gradual. If change is quick you risk taking away one tyranny and replacing it with another. So i ask, is it worth all this bloodshed? Were we really morally right in occupying Iraq? I think not.

"The United Nations refugee agency, the Red Cross and the Red Crescent have all expressed fears over civilians€ safety in Fallujah. The Iraqi government itself announced that some of the tens of thousands who have fled the city are ill and living in severely difficult conditions."

Airmail109
11-16-2005, 04:03 PM
€œFallujah €¦ is now 70% estimated to be bombed to the ground, no water, no electricity €¦ People inside the city are referring to it as a big jail. It is a horrendous situation, and we still have hundreds of thousands of refugees as a result. And the goal of besieging Fallujah as announced by the US military was to capture the phantom Zarqawi and to bring security and stability for the elections, and what's left is a situation where Fallujah is in shambles, and the resistance has spread throughout the country.€ (Dahr Jamail, a US citizen who spent many months in Iraq as one of the only independent, un-embedded journalists there; interviewed by the radio station Democracy Now!, 28 April 2005)


€œMost of the generals and politicians did not think through the consequences of compelling American soldiers with no knowledge of Arabic or Arab culture to implement intrusive measures inside an Islamic society. We arrested people in front of their families, dragging them away in handcuffs with bags over their heads, and then provided no information to the families of those we incarcerated. In the end, our soldiers killed, maimed and incarcerated thousands of Arabs, 90% of whom were not the enemy. But they are now.€ (Colonel Douglas A. Macgregor [retired], in €œDramatic failures require drastic changes", St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 19 December 2004).

I find that last quote very interesting.

Fallujah was relatively calm until, in April 2003, the US military took over a primary school in Fallujah as its headquarters. There surely were good operational reasons for this, but they were not negotiated with those €" teachers, parents, relatives, pupils €" who had an interest in the school. When members of these groups demonstrated peacefully outside the school, they were fired on, and twenty people were killed. This was the beginning of militancy in Fallujah.

Viper2005_
11-16-2005, 04:27 PM
No, my point is that you need to get a sense of perspective here.

White phosphorus is not a leading cause of mortality (infant or otherwise) in the world.

And what's more, I firmly believe that war should be made as violently objectionable as possible so that as a species we are better encouraged to kick the habbit.

Hence the various quotes at the start of my post.

If the price of peace in the long term is a few dead children on TV in the short term, perhaps that's a price worth paying. Afterall, as Keynes observed:

"In the long term, we're all dead"

But of course if I were one of the dead children I'd probably feel differently. Point of view again.

As to the relative worth of Iraqi lives vs Western lives, Welcome to the real world Aimail101 - humanity is selfish.

As for WWII and morals, last I heard we went to war with Germany to protect Poland from the Germans, quietly forgot that the Russians invaded Poland too (it being generally inadvisable to pick fights with those you cannot reasonably expect to beat irrespective of the moral position), then stood by and did nothing whilst they took over.

It just so happens that the Germans did some Very Bad Things(tm) during the war which made it very easy put them into the Bad Guys(r) slot, allowing the victorious Allies to be the Good Guys(r), ensuring good ratings in the movies.

Interestingly, the fact that this system technically made Stalin a Good Guy(r) was glossed over in most cold war era WWII movies...

Airmail109
11-16-2005, 04:31 PM
good points viper, I accept most of them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Sorry just finished a politics essay my minds rather boggled at the min.

I actually really enjoys these threads, you see my politics class has 2 other people in it. It turns out they dont say much and dont rise to debates. This is actually a great way for me to explore other peoples ideas and question my own viewpoints. Makes a change from my boring dull lessons. This has actually got me interested in researching the works of the politcal phillosipher Edmund Burke, because I can now relate his thoughts to current events. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

So to whichever mod let this carry on, thankyou, you have helped me rekindle my interest in philosophy/politics! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

arcadeace
11-16-2005, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
@ Arcadeace

Why were only a few journalists only allowed to travel with troops?

Now with all these accusations of attrocities dont you think they should at least be followed up by some sort of independent formal investigation?

Secondly, these terrorists/insurgents have been radicalised because of Iraq. The iraqis are getting "freedom" (partial as the government is very corrupt) at the cost of tens of thousands of lives some estimates run it at hundreds of thousands.

Arcadace take note of this:

These people have no historical/cultural basis for democracy. You cannot impose change over a few years, as many tory politicians observed in the French revoloution. Change should be gradual. If change is quick you risk taking away one tyranny and replacing it with another. So i ask, is it worth all this bloodshed? Were we really morally right in occupying Iraq? I think not.

"The United Nations refugee agency, the Red Cross and the Red Crescent have all expressed fears over civilians€ safety in Fallujah. The Iraqi government itself announced that some of the tens of thousands who have fled the city are ill and living in severely difficult conditions."

A few? You need much better research. Many encounters have numeruous journos on the spot. Much of the reporting has been negative, soldiers and even many Iraqis are well aware the this angle. One soldier gets wounded or dies, 30 foreign and former Saddam Baathist terrorists are killed, and what's the headline? Take a guess. If and when there is a planned battle and journalists are limited, it can be that protecting and manouvering with citizen non-combatants impedes efforts.

Investigation? You don't wanna investigate motives of sources or even scutinize the 'evidence' (the film itself)? You're young, very ideological and have no problem mocking, degrading - essentially judging as evil our soldiers on the ground. Its fact, they're baby killers because you've made up your mind.

I watch them on a weekly basis in our media. Interviews with indepth discussion. These are honorable young men and women who have the highest degree of purpose and integrity. You, me, most here, could not fill their shoes.

I could go into what the terrorist enclave established in Fallujah was with regards to bombings, mass killings, and spreading overall destruction toward our efforts to destroy a fanatical and inhumane former party stronghold countrywide, but any further discussion is impossible with you. You've been on a mission mate changing the direction intended by the thread's author.

Don't tell me anything about the UN 'refugee agency.' Or any other international organization. Corruption en masse. If you don't know what I'm talking about, again, do the research on who you are determined to put your faith in.

I won't carry this anymore, it is useless. Nothing personal with you. You're young and believe you're right and know what is good. I do hope you take the honest to goodness time to learn of and understand, the other side. I'd like to leave some info for thought, maybe?...

Many Iraqis who couldn't get jobs under Saddam Hussein because of their ethnicity, sectarian identity, or refusal to join the Baath party, are now working. The private sector economy is booming because Iraqis are investing in it, with some of the money coming from family members abroad. Thriving banks, restaurants, and furniture stores now occupy what were abandoned stores last year.

Further: in August, new business startups in Iraq exceeded 30,000. Individual Iraqis are better off financially than they have been for 20 years. According to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, per capita income has doubled since the United States toppled the Saddam regime. There are more than 3.5 million cellular phone subscribers in Iraq, up from zero when Saddam ruled. Internet cafes are thriving in even small towns.

And so, on and on.

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thinktanktown/2005/11/a_cheerier_view.html

Airmail109
11-16-2005, 04:59 PM
"A few? You need much better research. Many encounters have numeruous journos on the spot. Much of the reporting has been negative, soldiers and even many Iraqis are well aware the this angle. One soldier gets wounded or dies, 30 foreign and former Saddam Baathist terrorists are killed, and what's the headline? Take a guess. If and when there is a planned battle and journalists are limited, it can be that protecting and manouvering with citizen non-combatants impedes efforts."

Ill look into that.

"Investigation? You don't wanna investigate motives of sources or even scutinize the 'evidence' (the film itself)? You're young, very ideological and have no problem mocking, degrading - essentially judging as evil our soldiers on the ground. Its fact, they're baby killers because you've made up your mind."

Yes that films biased but it should not be totally dismissed, no source should ever be totally dismissed. Your old and to stuck in your ways.

" I watch them on a weekly basis in our media. Interviews with indepth discussion. These are honorable young men and women who have the highest degree of purpose and integrity. You, me, most here, could not fill their shoes."

Id fill those shoes if I thought it was morraly correct. However I think, unlike many people. So i would have to object.

"I could go into what the terrorist enclave established in Fallujah was with regards to bombings, mass killings, and spreading overall destruction toward our efforts to destroy a fanatical and inhumane former party stronghold countrywide, but any further discussion is impossible with you. You've been on a mission mate changing the direction intended by the thread's author."

Go on.....

"Don't tell me anything about the UN 'refugee agency.' Or any other international organization. Corruption en masse. If you don't know what I'm talking about, again, do the research on who you are determined to put your faith in."

And your government isnt?

" I won't carry this anymore, it is useless. Nothing personal with you. You're young and believe you're right and know what is good. I do hope you take the honest to goodness time to learn of and understand, the other side. I'd like to leave some info for thought, maybe?..."

I hope that not so old that you think your right because youve been living on the planet for longer, i find I question myself about my own views a lot.

"Many Iraqis who couldn't get jobs under Saddam Hussein because of their ethnicity, sectarian identity, or refusal to join the Baath party, are now working. The private sector economy is booming because Iraqis are investing in it, with some of the money coming from family members abroad. Thriving banks, restaurants, and furniture stores now occupy what were abandoned stores last year."

Wheredyou get that? Only a small section of the iraqi community have benefited. WHilst others are still living in increased poverty since the invasion.

"Further: in August, new business startups in Iraq exceeded 30,000. Individual Iraqis are better off financially than they have been for 20 years. According to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, per capita income has doubled since the United States toppled the Saddam regime. There are more than 3.5 million cellular phone subscribers in Iraq, up from zero when Saddam ruled. Internet cafes are thriving in even small towns."

Women arnt, they were realtively free to wear what they wanted. Now lots more women wear hijabs because they are afraid they will get attacked. under saddam (even though he was evil) women had more freedom.

Now i say this again. You CANNOT make a society accept democracy overnight. If change is to quick one tyranny leads to ANOTHER. These people have no historical or cultural roots in democracy. It will not last. The French revoloution lead to Napoleon. The Liberalistion of Italy lead to Mussolini and so on. Radical change has to be gradual. Change has to come throught the people, not an outside occupier. THis new democracy is built on dodgy foundations and it will not last.

Undeniably the Kurds have beneffited, maybe that makes the war almost worth it.

Ahh yes I see some of your info came from the washington post, well ill do more background research and decide for myself! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"I too would like to see how the distribution of wealth matches up. Are a few Iraqis of means getting rich or are most of them doing better? If it's a few of means how did they or those relatives outside the country come by their seed money when in old Iraq Saddam pretty much decided who got to prosper? A less rosy scenario could explain this newly created cellphone and internet industry as part and parcel of a communication network that not only that suppliments and helps coordinates the Baathist insurgency but also provides it with an abundance of IED triggers.

In a nation where unemployment is still at 40% to 50%, electrical service is still sporadic at best, kidnapping is rampant, and in at least 4 of the provinces where 50% of the people reside a war and the resulting lawlessness still prevails I think I'll take Mr. Rubin's analysis and Mr. Nessen's glowing conclusions with a large mountain of salt.

Having said that I have no doubt the Iraqis, being the best educated and most secular of Arab peoples with a big pot of oil to sustain them stand a good chance of making a decent country for themselves if everybody else would just get the hell out and leave them to their own devices. That goes for the US and the jihadis alike. I doubt these hungry capitalists, if they exist, will stand for foreigners like Zarqawi's kids messing with their road to riches if the occupation leaves." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

LEBillfish
11-16-2005, 06:20 PM
So in a nutshell your beef Airmail_101 is not so much with Phosphorous weapons and a thread about them yet your own personal issues about the war in Iraq.......yes?......Though your initial post was a gut reaction to seeing what I guess were casualties from them, it's quickly turned into a debate over MidEast topics and naturally keeps getting fueled.

SInce it's clear that's what it is let me remind you of the topic......

"Phosphorous Bomb"

and to be fitting to the forum their use in WWII.

Not a thread entitled "Bob's & Tom's personal issues/opinions & Soapbox on the War in Iraq".

Sorry, not trying to attack you but just how it is.......As msny of you are deliberately trying to derail this thread for your own selfserving opinions & agendas.


ON TOPIC However;

I wish we could get them here especially as they were used in the pacific. Both sides made great use of this easy to manufacture material. If they worked like they did in real life would really be a spectacular addition to the sim.

LEXX_Luthor
11-16-2005, 09:33 PM
Did Germany use posphor bombs?

berg417448
11-16-2005, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Did Germany use posphor bombs?

Apparently yes:

"Two other types of large incendiary bomb were introduced later in the War and were first deployed against local targets during the Baby Blitz of 1944. The most widely used of these were the two variants of the PHOSPHORBRANDBOMBE or Phosphorus Incendiary Bomb which were the same shape and size as 50 and 250 kg high explosive types, and therefore designated Brand C 50 and Brand C 250. Both contained a liquid filling consisting of Phosphorus, Oil and Rubber Solution, the Phosphorus being carried in glass bottles that were designed to break on impact and mix with the main filling. The bomb then split open scattering the contents, which ignited spontaneously, over an area of some metres."

LEXX_Luthor
11-16-2005, 10:59 PM
Did you just make that up?

LEXX_Luthor
11-16-2005, 11:00 PM
Ah, found my own link, thanks...

Brand C50 B Incendiary Bomb ~> http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/brandc50b.htm

fighter_966
12-01-2005, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by Arcadeace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FunGus1968:
Well guys, my intention was not to start a political debate. I'm new to these forums (at least as a member) and I just wanted to share the pictures.

In IL2, bombing ships is a fun and challenging part of the game. But one has to separate reality from fiction or else it would be impossible to play.

Again, I didn't start this thread to stir anything up.

No probs mate, welcome to the forum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I think you may wonder in time how certian members can possibly enjoy this sim lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have any one seen wounds that high energy bullet
does to victim or napalm ?.My father is a military doctor and I have seen worse pics than
that wp pics. War is cruel though this is a cliche.. nothing can be really said about the horrors in battlefield..Thats why maybe.. chilvalrous stories are so comfort to read ..
to see that some of the soldiers can still behave humanly

nakamura_kenji
12-01-2005, 04:39 AM
russians have number thermobaric muntions (fuel air bomb)


Tos-1
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/tos-af.jpg

Rpo
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/Rpo.jpg

basic work by muniton areosoel explosive aerosol is detonate cause large overpressure and heat. Tos-1 suppsode even create mushroom cloud 0_0