aubfire1,
You said it succintly!
Pogo,
As far as the Iraq civilian deaths study John Hopkins and Lancelt are two of them most respected in their fields. I will try to check the program, "Democracy Now's" archives for their interview, (when I get a chance) but a lot of the bodies were burned or destroyed in "Shock and Awe" and the destruction of Fallujah and such. Others were buried in the families yard.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The "Schock and Awe" strategy was specifically designed to strike definite targets with precision weapons and succeeded. This was not the mass bombings of WWII with a thousand planes in formation dropping double block buster bombs and delayed incendiaries. Nor, was it the carpet bombings of Viet Nam, but precision weapons at precise targets. Individual buildings were destroyed. I've seen several of them, and just a few yards away are undamaged buildings. Most of these buildinga are in government areas or military compounds, not near housing areas. Certainly, there is collateral damage and missiles that go off course. But, no way could such weapons kill 655,000 civilains. We didn't kill but about 7,260 Iraqi military and interior police during the war.
And, if buried in families yards, every yard would be full of bodies. If left in the open there would be Killing Field sized patches of bone and packs of jackals. They don't exist.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ US has constantly denied war crimes, like the use of White Phosphorus against civilians only to be proven wrong. I have little faith in their credibility and the corporatew media. I really wonder why others do.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Interventor: Again, bad information and no understanding of what you're talking about.
Here is a link
http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-fallujah3.htmlThe website appears liberal, not overtly leftist.
"Incendiary weapons like white phosphorus are governed by another treaty -- the 1980 Protocol III to the Convention on Conventional Weapons. This defines incendiary weapons as primarily designed "to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target." (The fact that heat or flame is produced by a chemical reaction does not make them chemical weapons, since it is not a case of a substance that causes death or injury by chemical action on the victim's "life processes")
The United States is not a party to the Incendiary Weapons Protocol -- but in any case, the treaty adds little to existing law, except a blanket restriction on dropping incendiary weapons from the air against military objectives "located within a concentration of civilians" (as was done in the fire-bombing of German cities like Dresden in World War II). Since the weapons used in Fallujah were shells, not bombs, this provision would not in any case be relevant."
Interventor: The US is not a signatory, the ban is against use from aircraft, and all use of force is banned against civilians, including bullets.
"There is no question that white phosphorus shells were used to target locations in Fallujah where insurgent fighters were believed to be hiding. An account by US soldiers in the army journal Field Artillery published in March 2005 describes their use in detail: "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for [smoke]screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon aginst the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [high explosive]. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."
Interventor: Did you get the part about insurgent fighters? They don't wear uniforms, so may appear as civilians, except that they happen to be shooting at you.
"Another report that has been widely quoted over the last few days was written by a journalist from the North County Times embedded with marines during earlier fighting in Fallujah. He describes marines sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives into buildings where insurgents have been sighted.
This week Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said that "U.S. forces used white phosphorus both in its classic screening mechanism and...when they encountered insurgents who were in foxholes and other covered positions who they could not dislodge in any other way."
Interventor: As I said before!
"The tests that should therefore be applied to the U.S. use of white phosphorus munitions are the standard rules provided in the laws of war for the use of any weapon. First, it is always unlawful to use force directly against civilians, or to carry out an attack where the expected level of harm to civilians is excessive in proportion to the military advantage expected. Secondly, it is forbidden to use weapons that cause "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." That would probably cover the use of white phosphorus in some weapons -- e.g. anti-personnel bullets -- but the United States could plausibly argue that the use of white phosphorus munitions to flush insurgents out of hiding places is militarily justifiable and therefore not unlawful."
Interventor: Again, no treaty and no unlawful use! Pogo and his buddies think the US should approach every situation like a police hostage scenario, where hostage negotiators talk with the jehadim while determining which are the bad guys. And, all this during a firefight! Did you know its against the Geneva Convention to appear as a civilian while bearing arms?