Export of Democracy to Iraq

[Sikander]

Originally posted by dannubis
yeah, a burning insurgent is easier to spot in the dark and eum, shoot him ?

To quote one of the soldiers in "Saving Private Ryan", "Let 'em burn!".

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap


The kind of injuries caused is irrelevant to the definition of something as a chemical weapon or not. Napalm has been banned even if it causes burns.

And as for the "law" issue, the question is whether WP can be used a sa weapon under any circumstances. Any weapon can be banned. If someone found the US was using explosive rounds for the M16A2's, then that would be a violation of the laws of war, even if not a single civilian was even hurt.

Napalm wasn't banned by any treaty or convention that the U.S. is a party to, it was eliminated from the U.S. weapons inventory by executive order during the Clinton administration.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
The kind of injuries caused is irrelevant to the definition of something as a chemical weapon or not. Napalm has been banned even if it causes burns.

It was banned as a wide-area weapon against civilians. We got rid of it for political reasons, not because of international law.

And as for the "law" issue, the question is whether WP can be used a sa weapon under any circumstances. Any weapon can be banned. If someone found the US was using explosive rounds for the M16A2's, then that would be a violation of the laws of war, even if not a single civilian was even hurt.

Yes, but in this case the law does make a distinction - it's only illegal used against civilians.