Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mantus
Well Ustwo every one in this country now knows that what goes around comes around. That dissaster of 9/11 and the current conflict in Iraq are direct results of our past policies. They may have been for the greater good at the time but we payed dearly for them in the present.
You are of course right that the treaty and the issue isn't all that important. Yet much ado about nothing can work both ways. I am pretty sure that the most advanced millitary in the world can find a way to achieve their objectives without the use of incendiary devices. Thus without actually sacrificing much we can gain a moral high ground.
So if napalm is used, I deduct marks from the millitary for using it.
|
We haven't signed the anti-landmine treaty for a reason as well.
They work in warfare and serve a purpose which can't be easily replaced.
So do fire bombs. If any US commander allowed casualties to US troops when he had a weapon at his disposal which would have prevented those casualties, based on a treaty we did not ratify, then I would like to see him court marshaled. There are limits of course, we have banned our own use of chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons have become a weapon of ultimate last resort, but fire bombs are not in that category, especially used against military targets. Would it have been better had we used moabs instead?