“Hunter.” “Melting the skin off of children.” Daily Kos, November 9, 2005.

Summary: It has recently become widely known that the United States Army used white-phosphorus incendiaries in the Battle of Fallujah. The substance released by these weapons has the effect of clinging to skin and burning or melting it chemically. Initially, the Army claimed that such incendiaries were used only for illumination, but it turns out that they were fired indiscriminately and as an anti-personnel weapon in city neighborhoods (“US Army admits use of white phosphorus as weapon,” Daily Kos, November 9, 2005).

The Army also pointed out that white phosphorus, like napalm, is not technically classified as a chemical weapon under the Geneva Conventions, and claimed that its use in Iraq is not illegal.

“Hunter” modestly proposes that, even so, it might be prudent to abstain from the use of such weapons:

Now, I know that we may be melting the skin off of children in order to give them freedom, or to prevent Saddam Hussein from possibly melting the skins off of those children at some future date. These are good and noble things to bring children, especially the ones who have not been killed by melting their skin.

I know, as well, that we do not drop “chemical weapons” Iraq. We may, in the course of fighting insurgents in civilian neighborhoods, drop “incendiaries” or other airborne weaponry which may melt the skins off of children as an accidental side effect of illuminating their neighborhoods or melting the skins off their neighbors. In that this still can be classified as melting the skins off of children, I feel comfortable in stating that the United States should not condone the practice. (This may mean, when fighting in civilian neighborhoods, we take nuanced steps to avoid melting the skin off of children, such as not dropping munitions that melt the skin off of children.)

I have to say that I'm with “Hunter” on this one.