from Phaenx:
Quote:
|
Chemical agent - A chemical substance which is intended for use in military operations to kill, seriously injure or incapacitate people because of its psychological effects. NATO definition.
|
from the article:
Quote:
|
"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."
|
Based on Lebell's definition, however, I agree that napalm doesn't fit the explicit definition of a chemical weapon as defined by the UN. In my opinion however, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. A flaming chemical gel used to burn the enemy and terrorize them is a chemical weapon as far as I am concerned.
If the US armed forces were so convinced that napalm is a legitimate battlefield weapon, they wouldn't have denied its use in the first place.
To get back to my original point, it's hard to take the moral high ground with Iraq when we're using terrible weapons such as napalm on them.