lets talk political

[Guest pop-notmyface]

i was going to mention this last week, but it totally slipped my mind.

it's really just regarding "The War on Terrorism" and how America have conducted themselves. which in my opinion is just plain wrong.

i mean, i'm not even going to go into finding Osama Bin Laden and other people that don't actually seem to exist at all.

no, i'm talking about chemical weapons here, after all it was on the news last week.

"The Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare"

(you can refresh your memory at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm)

and some of the things i found out about White Phosphorus:

"Exposure and inhalation of smoke

The dilute phosphoric acid in the aerosol cloud may be mildly irritating to the eyes but with normal field concentrations and exposure it is not harmful; extended exposure can lead to damage of lungs and throat. The smoke may also contain traces of unburnt phosphorus. A respirator usually provides adequate protection.

Exposure to incendiary agent

Burns to persons struck by particles of burning WP are usually much less extensive than napalm or metal incendiary burns, but are complicated by the toxicity of phosphorus (50 mg being the average lethal dose, LD50), the release of phosphoric acid into the wounds, and the possibility of small particles continuing to smoulder for some time if undetected.

Long-term exposure

Long-term exposure to phosphorus over several months to years may lead to condition known as phossy-jaw, caused by a deposition of phosphorus in the jaw bones, resulting in painful toothaches and swelling of the gums. Over time, the jaw bone would then begin to abscess, a process both extremely painful and disfiguring. Phossy-jaw may result in death.

First aid

The most immediate concern is to exclude air from wounds so as to extinguish any remaining burning particleswhile the first aider takes care not to touch the WP particles. Usually, this is mostly practicably achieved by cutting off contaminated clothing and dumping it in a fire resistant contaminated waste bin, and applying soaked compresses to the wounds. Ideally the compresses should be soaked in a mild sodium bicarbonate solution to neutralise phosphoric acid. If the patient is to be transported, sufficient water must be provided to keep the bandages wet at all times.

As soon as practicable, remaining particles must be removed from the wounds. This is done by underwater debridement of burnt areas with tweezers or a blunt metal spatula. If available, irrigation with a fresh 1% solution of copper sulphate is advantageous as it reacts with any remaining phosphorus particles, coating them with a layer of copper phosphide. (This very dark material is easier to see, and also fluoresces under ultraviolet light, if available. Furthermore it provides a relatively inert coating.) Care must be taken to only irrigate briefly, however, and thoroughly rinse away the solution afterward, or there is a risk of copper poisoning through the wounds. If copper sulphate is not available, inspection of the wounds in a darkened room may reveal any missed pieces through phosphorescence.

Subsequently treat as for a burn, but seek expert medical advice to treat phosphorus poisoning. Avoid oily ointments until it is certain all phosphorus has been removed.

Afterward, ensure all particles of WP and contaminated clothing are decontaminated by incineration."

"Asphyxiating" can be defined as "to deprive of oxygen and prevent from breathing"

the first passage certainly seems to suggest that, so in turn, it would be safe to say that White Phosphorus is a chemical, and since it was used in conjunction with weapons (mortars), it may be a safe assumption to say that it is a "CHEMICAL WEAPON".

and of course, one of the excuses to invade Iraq in the earlier stages was to disarm whoever they were fighting (now who was it again...bin ladens army, saddams army, terrorists, insurgents? actually, i've lost track) of their Chemical Weapons. but unfortunately, none have been found. not even any of the mobile chemical weapon generators or whatever they may have been called. now this may have been a legitimate reason for president bush and the US army. but now it turns out that

A. the US army was using white phosphorus (potentially a chemical weapon, but don't ask bush).

B. the claims that the US army was not using chemical weapons/white phosphorus in the war on Iraq and its' insurgents is clearly wrong.

there's nothing i can do about it, but i may be allowed to say that it's a fucking disgrace.

what do you think?

[Dan G]

....................there's nothing i can do about it' date=' but i may be allowed to say that it's a fucking disgrace.

what do you think?[/quote']

I THINK no one is going to read that and you wasted your time.

The way I see it is;

your opinion is based on what you know.

you know what you do because you believe what you read/hear.

what you read/hear may be inaccurate.

Who knows whats really happening out there? And I mean REALLY KNOW. As opposed to watching the news, reading the odd paper and formulating a strong opinion on it.

(God that sounds like the X-files or something...)

[Guest pop-notmyface]

yeah...i feared this. nipple slips on national tv are far more important and interesting.

no seriously, i'm not being sarcastic!

[Guest Neubeatz]

there's nothing i can do about it, but i may be allowed to say that it's a fucking disgrace.

what do you think?

I said this before and I say it again.

I think;

We are slaves, slaves to the global petrochemical military industrial complex.

[Guest pop-notmyface]

i guess we don't really know ANYTHING. it may all be a lie.

but i think what i read is quite believable.

it's a matter of trying to figure everything out, picking out the lies from the truth.

and as far as the war is concerned (okay, i am totally against wars of any kind), it seems all very set up. there were so many issues to begin with that have been interwoven with lies and confusion. who can actually clearly explain what the war is about or how it started?

1. was it about the liberation of Iraq?

2. was it because of the september 11th attack?

3. was it because of this al-quaeda, this bin laden guy and terrorism?

4. was it about securing oil supplies?

5. was it about disarming the Iraq's weapons?

6. was it about empowering the wealthy "households" in Iraq?

7. was it about the fear of uprising and insurgents?

8. was it because power hungry leaders want to gain more control?

even with plenty of research, it's hard to make out. all the motives and intentions just seem foul. they are not quite right. but i don't know. all i know is that i'm not happy about it.

grrr