you said:
Quote:
|
Who lied? Technically they didn't use napalm, it was a mark whatever firebomb. Attention to detail, hoo-rawr (internet nerd variation of that thing they do in the military).
|
so i thought it would be fun to take that same literal attitude and see how it played out on your side. Note my use of "attention to detail".
So my twisting of the meanings of words by falling back on a literal definition offended you? Good. The US military did the same thing and you defended it. Interesting, eh?
I believe that napalm is a chemical weapon. Whether some "convention" calls it so is irrelevant. It's not a weapon the US military should be using in Iraq. The fact that we are using nasty incendiary chemicals on Iraqis while accusing them of possessing the same is hypocritical.
I love the united states. I dislike the Bush administration, the patriot act, john ashcroft, ken lay, enron, haliburton, dick cheney, paul wolfowitz, and the lies used to get us into war with iraq when a slower approach using a united UN front would have been better.
But I guess criticizing the current administration and the Iraq war makes me "unpatriotic" in your eyes. Well, so be it.