Well, ya know...<br><br><br>Notice something strangely familiar (or not so strange) in the url? <br><br>

ROFLMAO!!<br><br>Of course, he never answered the question about taking up the cause for Burma!<br><br>Don't suspect he will either!<br>

Considering you got it all wrong on Iraq, I wouldn't mention the word credibility if I were you. How could all that 'intelligence' be so wrong? If it was so wrong about Iraq, what else is the 'intelligence community' wrong about? I mean, if your intelligence is unreliable, that's not good.<br><br>Iraq is the most current of examples.<br><br>So how could you have got it so wrong? You thought you were so right.<br><br>It's not a good thing.<br><br>

Ummmm<br>Stupid me, what the hell is THIS all about?<br><br>Easy to not be outraged by something I no ZIP about.<br><br>So now I have to figure out who these people are......<br>and what part we may (or may not have ) played in it<br>just to know if I'm supposed to be "outraged" by it?<br><br>Christmas Candy!<br><br>Here we poor dumb liberals can't hold 2 news stories<br>in our pea-brains at a time, and here you are throwing<br>more than one abomination at us as well?<br><br>OK, Sarge, it's 2:15AM, wanna break off attacking Zappy<br>for not ever having seen a rotting corpse before, long<br>enough to fill in the blanks?<br><br><br><br>

US used white phosphorus in Iraq<br><br>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said. <br><br>"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br><br> <br><br>

Yeah. We shoulda just thrown marshmallows at 'em. Like when they hit our convoys with those nasty water balloons.<br><br>

so, we used it as a weapon and that's now been admitted? i thought that was the debate you were having with sgt.?<br><br>but, in sgt's defense, it's hard to support the statements made by our administration when we get stuff like this:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The State Department, in response, initially denied that U.S. troops had used white phosphorous against enemy forces. "They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."<br><br>The department later said its statement had been incorrect.<p><hr></blockquote><p>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05

That's what they are trained to do. Deny and lie. Until undeniable evidence is brought forward.<br><br>The region has been through this before with the brits in the early part of last century. They know.<br><br>

<br>It's that nasty assed Geneva Convention thing again.<br>You no, we don't light your ass on fire, in hopes that<br>you observe the same rules (or face prosecution by<br>the world court)<br><br>Incendiary devices are NOT (repeat NOT) to be used <br>as anti-personnel weapons.<br><br>My comment above (And I believe Sgt.'s as well) was<br>directed at the pictures and the allegation that they <br>(the blackened, leathery, corpses, wearing clothes<br>that were not burned) were not the result of white<br>phosphorus. They were INDEED Dead, and may have<br>died as a result of said white phosphorus. But the <br>condition of the bodies was more likely to have <br>resulted from corpses left exposed, to hot, dry, <br>desert-like conditions, and seemingly fed upon by<br>vermin of one sort or another.<br><br><br><br>

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought we were talking about gas vs. charcoal.<br><br>