are you off your tits? Did you read any of that report?

Its being used on civilians, you throw that stuff into a building complex and you KILL civilians. It is also outlawed by any means, unless you are lighting up a test bed area (like a open space). They are NOT using it to light up an area, but in TANDEM with HE.

Non the less, even using it as a WEAPON against military is a very ropey and contested area (see footer). Its napalm, with more power. The americans did indeed ban napalm, but only because they had WP among others, so no longer needed it.

Video evidence help you?

The use of the incendiary substance on civilians is forbidden by UN treaty, the geneva convention and others

watch this video and compare it to this -United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention - and see what you think -

PLEASE DONT OPEN THIS IN FRONT OF MINORS
<EDITED TO REMOVE THIS LINK> pm if you want it. Bit severe for this forum methinks.

You CANNOT use it as a weapon - due to international agreement , but check out the insideDC website (the US propoganda site) and see the following key line:

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory.

Well Iraq wasnt a signatory to any treaties either, does that make them innocent then?

Heres some more reading for you. This is what the world thought BEFORE the admission of using WP.

Heres the story BEFORE they edited it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm


UN resolutions anyone? (our basis for going to war)

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane. ... endocument


Amnesty international
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140572004

Just watched a documentary in a blog about this. Pretty frightening stuff. There was an interview with soldiers who said they had been told to wait until bush had won the election before entering falujiah, almost as if it was his celebration party to go in there and wipe them all out.

You know, I wonder what my stance on this is to be honest.
The war, in my opinion, was wrong and the previous trade restrictions caused untold suffering and death of innocents. It was the world's adherance to international law that prevented assasination of Saddam and his government in the first place, which could have been a much less bloody affair than a full blown land war.

However, I think singling out the use of white phosphorous seems to somehow justify the use of conventional arms, which also maim and kill unless no-one had noticed.
Sure, it's a chemical weapon, but when you get down to it, so is a chunk of C4, and civilians are just as susceptible to that as they are to any other weapon. Don't get me started on cluster bombs and land mines.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here, but it just seems wrong to me to condemn one way of hurting people when there are so many others going on over there.

The image of the naked burning Vietnamese girl is, I guess, harder to stomach than someone with a bullet through them, but does that make one way of killing more palatable? It shouldn't.

Nukes and Biowarfare is another issue as they have significant lasting environmental effects, and don't get me wrong - I'm a pacifist and don't hold with any of this stuff unless you're defending loved ones, which we're clearly not unless we really love oil. Oh, I see.

whos the other superpower. I know china are rising economically, but they have neither the organisation nor the manpower (surprisingly) to launch any campaign other than a nuclear or chemical one.

China are not there yet. Thankfully.