<b>God damn, you liberal crybabies will bitch about anything huh?</b>

Well, we learned our bitching talents by watching the republicans bitch constantly about Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, and a whole host of other things about Clinton.

It's like those old anti-drug PSA's:

"WE LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU!!!"

:)

you can say 2+2 = 5 doesn't make it true though. I have yet to see a credible source that labels napalm as a chemical weapon. By your definition any binary chemical explosive would be a chemical weapon. Nitroglycerine is an explosive, but it exists as a liquid so its a chemical weapon. Tracer ammunition would also be a chemical weapon since it uses phosphorus as a tracing agent.

In the case of the bridge, it was probably the best choice of weapon for leaving the bridge intact. There really isn't a whole lot of options when it comes to anti-personnel weapons for air strikes. Cluster munitions are great, but they have longer term effects because of unexploded bomblets. Strafing with 20mm isn't very effective and poses more risk to the pilot than to the combatants that are being strafed. 500, 1000, and 2000 lb iron bombs are more likely to cause serious harm to the structure, which isn't the best thing do to when you are trying to preserve infrastructure. Guided munitions such as hellfires, mavericks and tows are designed for hard targets. Flechette artillery rounds are great, but of limited availability and you actually have to have artillery in place to use it. (and talk about not being pretty, instant hamburger)

<b>You can say 2+2 = 5 doesn't make it true though.</b>

Exactly my point. You can say a MK77-5 weapon contains "fuel gel" not napalm, but that doesn't make it true, or honest.

I think napalm differs from nitro in that it has a specific antipersonnel and psychological application. The point is to burn the enemy to death by coating them with sticky flaming gelatine, terrorize them, and scare them with the smell. I can't think of a comparable weapon except for biological and chemical weapons such as VX gas and mustard gas. In the article the armed forces representatives admit that.

I fully realize that napalm is not a chemical weapon under the UN convention. I feel that it is categorized that way just due to a technicality, and that it properly should be considered one.

Again, my opinion, yours obviously differs.

fair question. Here are my answers.

Q - Burning the enemy to death using flaming gel to clear a bridge approach
A - definitely
Q - Using sarin nerve gas to kill the enemy? Using it in a mixed area with civilians in it?
A - no im against both chemical and biological weapons
Q - Using anthrax to eliminate the enemy.
A - again no
Q - Assasinating the enemy leaders? The leader's family?
A - enemy leaders definitely yes. the family depends. I assume you are thinking of sadams sons with this question and since they were part of his command structure then they were legitimate targets. targeting a leaders completely civillian wife and or small children would be a no.
Q - Feeding enemies through plastic shredders in front of their children?
A - no
Q - Forcing the children of an enemy to shoot their parents?
A - no
Q - Passing prisoners of war off to countries that allow torture in order to get confessions
A - sure
Q - Imprisoning citizens for years without access to lawyers or family
A - this one depends. grabbing a citizen off a us street? no capturing a citizen fighting as part of an enemy army engaged in action against us or allied troops? definitely

hope that helps

I can... A B-52, dropping dozens of 500-pound bombs on an enemy position. The object is to kill the enemy (blow them to bits, tear them apart using shrapnel), to terrorize them into submission (leaving them dazed and confused), to scare them by coating them in the blood and entrails of their former comrades, and to terrorize nearby troops with the sound/feeling and the resulting stream of wounded men.

Hell, any weapon is designed to kill in nasty ways, terrorize the enemy, and scare them with the results.

Napalm is *not* a chemical weapon because it does not work by poisoning it's victims. That is not an opinion, it's a matter of definition. If you call that a "technicality", we could call *everything* a technicality. Hell, let's change math to accept 2+2=5; after all, it's just a technicality...

I've got no belief, but I believe, i'm a walking <b>contradiction</b>, and i ain't got no right..

Your statement is funny, because several people argued with me already in this thread that the navy was ok in denying that napalm was used in iraq because "technically" they had changed the name of napalm to "fuel gel".

I clearly said that my opinion differs from that of the UN. I am free to call napalm a chemical weapon just as the Navy is free to call napalm "fuel gel". Your opinion differs. The term "chemical weapon" isn't like 2+2=5, it's just a made up term defined by a UN committee.

A friend of mine said once that when an argument reaches the point of people arguing about linguistics and grammar and word origins, it's time to stop. :)

Usually because that means one persons argument is flawed in a most damaging way and is about to get "owned".

Well, if you have some secret super-duper argument to drop on me, fire away, sir!

Okay, just for the sake of argument... how would *you* define chemical weapons?

I already answered that. Backscroll please. :)

I consider "chemical weapon" to mean a type of tool used in gardening. How would you use napalm to plant flowers?

















:rolleyes:

Ponders to self:

*Should I let the nonsense arguing continue of the definition of "chemical weapon" or should I lock the thread?*

Lock it.

<b>lebell</b>

I think all the useful arguing is done here. It's up to you. :)

And just to make sure that all the bullshit is done here..... LOCKED!