USA admits to dropping chemical weapons on Iraq - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

reconmike · 08-11-2003, 06:33 AM

Why do we need to know everything that the US military is using in combat?

The objective of war is to win, and whether it is napalm or a nuke if you are on the buisness end of it , it must suck to be you.

Phaenx · 08-11-2003, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by almostaugust
Gold Jerry. Gold.

Why lie about using it? Oh, thats right, Police State.

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).

sonikeko · 08-11-2003, 09:55 AM

Here's the problem here folks. The United STates Governement has, yet again, lied to the public. We continue to preach our justifications of War because of the "potential" of WMD, when the US manufactures and uses them. It's hippocritical and wrong. We search for justice for the many American lives that were lost in 9/11, and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, that is a key reason we are in Iraq. The Government has come out and said that iraq has ties to Al-Queda. Saddam is an evil evil man, but nothing can ever justify the loss of civilian lives from War. Especially in our times of precision-guided laser bombs and such.

Zeld2.0 · 08-11-2003, 10:11 AM

No shit its the objective of the military to win.

Pretty much everyone here agrees with it.

The differnece is that some people dont seem to care the gov't would lie about it, and others do care.

If Bush / higher ups didn't order it, then thats more disturbing. Why? Because the military is willing to use its weapons that were not authorized or that the gov't DID NOT know about.

Coup d'etat anyone? When the military starts thinking by itself, starts developing weapons for itself, all in secret and away from the gov't, then you have problems.

All it has to do is fall into the wrong hands and blam, this country could be in deep shit.

Think about it - if Bush / officials didn't know about it, then the military is willing to use weapons to go to war the populace doesn't want.

Oh wait and I thought that people ruled this country, not the military.

IF anyone here thinks its not going towards a military/police state - no, maybe not in the short 10 years ahead, but 50? Very possible.

Phaenx · 08-11-2003, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sonikeko
Here's the problem here folks. The United STates Governement has, yet again, lied to the public. We continue to preach our justifications of War because of the "potential" of WMD, when the US manufactures and uses them. It's hippocritical and wrong. We search for justice for the many American lives that were lost in 9/11, and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, that is a key reason we are in Iraq. The Government has come out and said that iraq has ties to Al-Queda. Saddam is an evil evil man, but nothing can ever justify the loss of civilian lives from War. Especially in our times of precision-guided laser bombs and such.

Fine, lets leave said civilians with Saddam. He'll kill them for us, and continue to do so until he dies of old age and his sons grab power, then they'll kill even more because we allow them to: Justice.

There is no "potential" either, this was a certainty. There was no doubt going into the war they had these things. Unless you count the people who never actually read 1441, they don't actually count though.

Zeld2.0 · 08-11-2003, 10:14 AM

How predictable. Going for the old "Saddam would've killed more" and pulling out the old 1441. I still say we could probably write our own post out and predict who responds with what

That aside - seriously though, thats going away from the issue.

I call on both sides to just plain stop trailing off to whose right/wrong on going to war and actually focus on whether the gov't acutally lied about using napalm or it was the military itself or what.

Phaenx · 08-11-2003, 10:50 AM

Yes, it's an oldie but a goodie. Excuse me, I have to kick my own ass for saying "oldie but goodie."

Anyways, bottom line: NAPALM IS GOOD.

The_Dude · 08-11-2003, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
Why do we need to know everything that the US military is using in combat?

The objective of war is to win, and whether it is napalm or a nuke if you are on the buisness end of it , it must suck to be you.

haha, so what if saddam hussien had launched the nukes he didnt have?? the objective of the war is to win right?

if two nuclear powers went to war, and both used wmd's, then both nations would be wiped out.

reconmike · 08-11-2003, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
haha, so what if saddam hussien had launched the nukes he didnt have?? the objective of the war is to win right?

if two nuclear powers went to war, and both used wmd's, then both nations would be wiped out.

If Hussien used maybe one or two nukes this would mean Iraq would be the worlds largest glass parking lot.

Nukes have been a deterent since WWII, keeping jack-asses honest from doing anything stupid.

shalafi · 08-11-2003, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
I call on both sides to just plain stop trailing off to whose right/wrong on going to war and actually focus on whether the gov't acutally lied about using napalm or it was the military itself or what.

you can call it lying/misinformation/whateve you want but it doesnt change the fact that the us military no longer has a weapon designated as napalm no matter what the common soldiers call it.

BigGov · 08-11-2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
haha, so what if saddam hussien had launched the nukes he didnt have?? the objective of the war is to win right?

if two nuclear powers went to war, and both used wmd's, then both nations would be wiped out.

Except for the fact Saddam couldn't hit us. While just one of our trident subs could take out all of Iraq.

The_Dude · 08-11-2003, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy4
Except for the fact Saddam couldn't hit us. While just one of our trident subs could take out all of Iraq.

well, i dont mean mainland US. i meant the forces massing around iraq.

Phaenx · 08-11-2003, 02:33 PM

That would be by and large a waste of your nuke. We tend not to clump together, so chances are you'll only get a few hundred soldiers (and lots of civilians). If I were him I'd have sold the thing or whatever I had and skipped town to Syria or something with my billions and billions of dollars.

Xell101 · 08-11-2003, 02:46 PM

The WMD in it of itself was evil and why it had to be removed.

In war you have to a certain disregard for the other guys personal safety...

BigGov · 08-11-2003, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
That would be by and large a waste of your nuke. We tend not to clump together, so chances are you'll only get a few hundred soldiers (and lots of civilians). If I were him I'd have sold the thing or whatever I had and skipped town to Syria or something with my billions and billions of dollars.

More like a few thousand, but after that we'd probably pull all of our guys out and let our subs do the talking.

debaser · 08-11-2003, 03:00 PM

Since when was napalm a WMD?

Phaenx · 08-11-2003, 03:05 PM

Since it looked appealing enough to liberals to mislabel and use as slander ammo against America =).

Macheath · 08-11-2003, 04:19 PM

1998: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky - It was a blowjob.

2003: We never dropped napalm in Iraq - we used kerosene, not petrol.

Zeld2.0 · 08-11-2003, 04:26 PM

Wrong - the U.S. military does 'tend' to clump up together (during the pre-war). U.S. military installations across the world are much juicier targets for WMDs and it was a possible threat during the period of massing up. After of course it spreads out but thats not to say that most installations aren't together - because in truth, many are.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-11-2003, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Since it looked appealing enough to liberals to mislabel and use as slander ammo against America =).

I am deeply offended that you accused me of labeling the fuel bombs that the USA is dropping on Iraq as Chemical Weapons . I demand that you retract your statement, just like the army did with the australian newspaper that said that they were dropping napalm.

I did not say that at all. I said that the USA was dropping chemical weapons on Iraq. As you can see, fuel bombs are chemical, and they are a weapon, but I never implied that they were Chemical Weapons (capitalized). They, of course, are not, and burning people to death slowly with a mixture of fuel and gelatine is perfectly allowed under US Chemical Weapons policy.

Likewise, I did not said that the USA was using Weapons of Mass Destruction, I said "weapons of mass destruction". They are certainly weapons that cause mass destruction. Your attempt to twist my words offends me, sir. It is not my fault that you cannot take my words for what they literally say.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-11-2003, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Who lied? Technically they didn't use napalm, it was a mark whatever firebomb.

Who lied? The military lied, that's who. Perhaps you would be interested in the history of the MK77 Napalm Munition

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...tions/mk77.htm

BigGov · 08-11-2003, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
Wrong - the U.S. military does 'tend' to clump up together (during the pre-war). U.S. military installations across the world are much juicier targets for WMDs and it was a possible threat during the period of massing up. After of course it spreads out but thats not to say that most installations aren't together - because in truth, many are.

However, only nuclear weapons need apply considering that every soldier was supplied with a protective suit, and ways to prevent contamination were plentiful.

Zeld2.0 · 08-11-2003, 04:36 PM

... which was the point of the post which was about nukes being used...

Though I will tell you this - even with protective suits, many weapons don't even take 20 seconds to kill you, so if you're caught off guard, you're toast. Unless you are wearing the suit 24/7 which doesn't happen, you better be able to put that suit on within 10 seconds (not likely) before enough VX or sarin kills.

Phaenx · 08-11-2003, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
Wrong - the U.S. military does 'tend' to clump up together (during the pre-war). U.S. military installations across the world are much juicier targets for WMDs and it was a possible threat during the period of massing up. After of course it spreads out but thats not to say that most installations aren't together - because in truth, many are.

Yes, they spread out after Saddam knows he's boned, which would be when he'd use it.

Phaenx · 08-11-2003, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I am deeply offended that you accused me of labeling the fuel bombs that the USA is dropping on Iraq as Chemical Weapons . I demand that you retract your statement, just like the army did with the australian newspaper that said that they were dropping napalm.

I did not say that at all. I said that the USA was dropping chemical weapons on Iraq. As you can see, fuel bombs are chemical, and they are a weapon, but I never implied that they were Chemical Weapons (capitalized). They, of course, are not, and burning people to death slowly with a mixture of fuel and gelatine is perfectly allowed under US Chemical Weapons policy.

Likewise, I did not said that the USA was using Weapons of Mass Destruction, I said "weapons of mass destruction". They are certainly weapons that cause mass destruction. Your attempt to twist my words offends me, sir. It is not my fault that you cannot take my words for what they literally say.

I will not.

I know what you said, and I know what you meant to imply. I stand by my original statement.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-11-2003, 05:26 PM

Quote:

I know what you said, and I know what you meant to imply. I stand by my original statement.

It is not my fault that you lack attention to detail.

Phaenx · 08-11-2003, 05:35 PM

Ho, ho. Quite the opposite. You would have seriously reworded your statement if you wanted to do anything else but defame our boys defending our nation.

debaser · 08-11-2003, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
It is not my fault that you lack attention to detail.

Sophistry is in poor taste. Troll elsewhere.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-11-2003, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Sophistry is in poor taste. Troll elsewhere.

What's funny is that I'm using Phaenx's EXACT WORDS and line of arguing in this thread right back at him, and no one has caught on yet. Please, scroll back and see for yourself.

The only sophistry I see here is the US Armed Forces, which denied the use of napalm in Iraq, failing to mention that they used MK77 Mark 5's, which the entire rest of the world agrees contain napalm, and in fact replaced the MK77 Mark 4's, which everyone including the armed forces agreed contained napalm.

I may pedantic, but I was beaten to sophistry. But hey, at least I'm amused.

Phaenx · 08-11-2003, 06:40 PM

Looks like backpeddling from a mean spirited attack on your own country to me. It's also easy for you to say this now, so I will allow you a chance to humor me on these exact words, how they relate to your wording, and why it's not meant to slander your country.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-11-2003, 06:50 PM

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.

Phaenx · 08-11-2003, 07:20 PM

You have quite a bit of foresight to be able to see into the future. Lets take a look:

Quote:

USA admits to dropping chemical weapons on Iraq

Quote:

How can we have the moral high ground when we use weapons of mass destruction on the very enemies that we are trying to remove WMD from?

Your first post, dripping with contempt for the United States.

Before I even brought it up? You've been consistant in your contempt, don't lie to me, and stop accusing me of twisting your words. This is after the fact that you had already labeled them chemical weapons, and weapons of mass destruction (they are not), continually denouncing the military as liars and hypocrites. To top it off, you proceed to attack the supporters when your intentions are uncovered.

So what are we to think? You could have worded this differently, but you chose to do so in the manner that best illustrated hate towards the military officials.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-11-2003, 08:21 PM

Quote:

You could have worded this differently, but you chose to do so in the manner that best illustrated hate towards the military officials.

Guilty as charged. I worded it in the way that showed the most contempt for military officials that think lying to the public is ok, and that using terrible chemical incendiary weapons on a vastly undergunned enemy force is acceptable. Using napalm on iraqi forces for the simple job of clearing bridges is using Weapons Of Mass Destruction in my opinion.

The military did lie, and twist words. That's what the article was about.

When you suggested that burning those three nuns to death was fine by you, I didn't accuse you of having contempt for nuns. So don't accuse me of having contempt for the USA because I dislike the actions of the US military in Iraq.

Phaenx · 08-11-2003, 08:51 PM

You called me disgusting, and even if you did say I had contempt for nuns in general you would obviously be spinning, and I'd call you on it, but that's beside the point.

They are also not chemical weapons in the sense that the agents petroleum, benzene, and polystyrene (the ingredients for napalm) are largely distilled from natural substances, or are natural substances. According to NATO, they are not chemical weapons. If they are, then so is laundry detergent. I'd be surprised if it mattered to you though, I believe the far left view on the military, and anything a conservative would support is skewed negatively, hence the anti-Bush anti-American sentiment.

As for the article itself, you cannot call them liars, and there were no words to twist, napalm is not what they used. Albeit a technicality, your accusations are fundamentally not true.

Furthermore, the mark 77 firebombs are apparently a very effective means of killing your enemy.

Ace_of_Lobster · 08-11-2003, 08:54 PM

Hey lets defend anything our team does, because its our team and for no other reason.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-11-2003, 09:45 PM

Quote:

I had contempt for nuns in general you would obviously be spinning, and I'd call you on it, but that's beside the point.

Exactly, and you are saying I hate my country using exactly the same sort of extrapolation. I'm calling you on it. You're spinning.

Quote:

As for the article itself, you cannot call them liars, and there were no words to twist, napalm is not what they used. Albeit a technicality, your accusations are fundamentally not true.

Well you should correct the USA military. The MK77-4, which the armed forces commonly referred to as napalm, was actually, as you said, a mix of petroleum, benzene, and polystyrene. Napalm is "technically" a mix of naphthene and palmitate with gasoline. With the MK77-5 the USA changed the formula slightly and denied that the product was napalm, even through the MK77-4, by your definition, wasn't napalm in the first place.

So, I guess it would be ok for the USA to start using mustard gas again as long as we started calling it Freedom Gas.

Being "technically" correct isn't good enough when people are being roasted alive. The military knew damn well they were using napalm against the Iraqis, but issued a denial to cover up. Clinton was "technically correct" when he said "I did not have sex with that woman." I wonder if you were defending him a few years ago?

Lebell · 08-11-2003, 10:27 PM

The name calling aside,

Napalm isn't a "chemical" weapon in the same sense as is generally meant when the military and government say "chemical" weapon.

Harmless, by your definition (any weapon containing chemicals is a "chemical" weapon), then ALL modern weapons beyond a bayonnette are chemical weapons, as bullets and bombs all use chemical reactions in their functioning.

There's a good reason when they say, "War is Hell".

seretogis · 08-11-2003, 10:28 PM

To suggest that the Pentagon "lied" because it truthfully answered an incorrectly-stated question, is moronic. If you own a Ford Mustang, and I ask you if you own a Corvette, and you say "No, I do not own a Corvette", you aren't lying simply because you own another sports-car. The Pentagon should take questions at face value and not volunteer information which isn't requested -- it's their nature.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-11-2003, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Napalm isn't a "chemical" weapon in the same sense as is generally meant when the military and government say "chemical" weapon.

Sorry about the high emotion level,Lebell, but seriously, can you define a chemical weapon for me then? Napalm, as far as I can tell, is toxic to the touch, kills people by removing oxygen from the air as well as burning them alive, and has other nasty toxic properties besides burning. It seems to me that it is only not a chemical weapon due to a technicality.

And if bullets contained a gel that burned the flesh off of enemies, I'd call it a chemical weapon too.

Quote:

To suggest that the Pentagon "lied" because it truthfully answered an incorrectly-stated question, is moronic.

ok, let's set up the situation there.

1. The government uses napalm (which technically isn't napalm, but the government calls it that anyway) in MK77 -4 weapons.
2. The government changes the formula, comes out with the MK77-5 weapons, and decides on its own not to call it napalm any more. (Apparently, the official name is "fuel gel".)
3. The Sydney Herald, using an embedded reporter, observes the MK77-5 being used. The soldiers call it napalm. They say in a story that napalm is being used:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...749944836.html
4. The pentagon replies, saying:

Quote:

Your story ('Dead bodies everywhere', by Lindsay Murdoch, March 22, 2003) claiming US forces are using napalm in Iraq, is patently false. The US took napalm out of service in the early 1970s. We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001, and no longer maintain any stocks of napalm. - Jeff A. Davis, Lieutenant Commander, US Navy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense.

So the Navy, fully away that MK77-5 bombs had been dropped on the enemy, told the Herald that their story was "patently false."

Misleading? The security group GlobalSecurity.org thinks so:

Quote:

But John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it." Marines returning from Iraq chose to call the firebombs "napalm".

You can draw your own conclusions. However, I'm going to dial down the rhetoric here and focus on the facts, and I do not think that concluding that the pentagon lied is moronic. It's a reasonable conclusion based on the facts presented.

Phaenx · 08-11-2003, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Exactly, and you are saying I hate my country using exactly the same sort of extrapolation. I'm calling you on it. You're spinning.

Well you should correct the USA military. The MK77-4, which the armed forces commonly referred to as napalm, was actually, as you said, a mix of petroleum, benzene, and polystyrene. Napalm is "technically" a mix of naphthene and palmitate with gasoline. With the MK77-5 the USA changed the formula slightly and denied that the product was napalm, even through the MK77-4, by your definition, wasn't napalm in the first place.

So, I guess it would be ok for the USA to start using mustard gas again as long as we started calling it Freedom Gas.

Being "technically" correct isn't good enough when people are being roasted alive. The military knew damn well they were using napalm against the Iraqis, but issued a denial to cover up. Clinton was "technically correct" when he said "I did not have sex with that woman." I wonder if you were defending him a few years ago?

I'm not spinning at all. You continue to lay out the evidence yourself, I need not elaborate.

As for the napalm. They changed it, they renamed it, they were asked if they used napalm, they answered truthfully. I'm glad you understand they were not lying.

I'm also glad our military knows what they're doing, napalm is a good thing.

08-11-2003, 06:33 AM	#41 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Why do we need to know everything that the US military is using in combat? The objective of war is to win, and whether it is napalm or a nuke if you are on the buisness end of it , it must suck to be you. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

08-11-2003, 09:55 AM	#43 (permalink)
sonikeko What the HELL? Location: Bowling Green, OH	Here's the problem here folks. The United STates Governement has, yet again, lied to the public. We continue to preach our justifications of War because of the "potential" of WMD, when the US manufactures and uses them. It's hippocritical and wrong. We search for justice for the many American lives that were lost in 9/11, and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, that is a key reason we are in Iraq. The Government has come out and said that iraq has ties to Al-Queda. Saddam is an evil evil man, but nothing can ever justify the loss of civilian lives from War. Especially in our times of precision-guided laser bombs and such. __________________ "Adolescence is short, maturity is forever"

08-11-2003, 10:50 AM	#47 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Yes, it's an oldie but a goodie. Excuse me, I have to kick my own ass for saying "oldie but goodie." Anyways, bottom line: NAPALM IS GOOD. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-11-2003, 02:33 PM	#53 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	That would be by and large a waste of your nuke. We tend not to clump together, so chances are you'll only get a few hundred soldiers (and lots of civilians). If I were him I'd have sold the thing or whatever I had and skipped town to Syria or something with my billions and billions of dollars. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-11-2003, 03:00 PM	#56 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Since when was napalm a WMD? __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

08-11-2003, 10:11 AM	#44 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	No shit its the objective of the military to win. Pretty much everyone here agrees with it. The differnece is that some people dont seem to care the gov't would lie about it, and others do care. If Bush / higher ups didn't order it, then thats more disturbing. Why? Because the military is willing to use its weapons that were not authorized or that the gov't DID NOT know about. Coup d'etat anyone? When the military starts thinking by itself, starts developing weapons for itself, all in secret and away from the gov't, then you have problems. All it has to do is fall into the wrong hands and blam, this country could be in deep shit. Think about it - if Bush / officials didn't know about it, then the military is willing to use weapons to go to war the populace doesn't want. Oh wait and I thought that people ruled this country, not the military. IF anyone here thinks its not going towards a military/police state - no, maybe not in the short 10 years ahead, but 50? Very possible.

08-11-2003, 10:14 AM	#46 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	How predictable. Going for the old "Saddam would've killed more" and pulling out the old 1441. I still say we could probably write our own post out and predict who responds with what That aside - seriously though, thats going away from the issue. I call on both sides to just plain stop trailing off to whose right/wrong on going to war and actually focus on whether the gov't acutally lied about using napalm or it was the military itself or what.

08-11-2003, 02:46 PM	#54 (permalink)
Xell101 Junkie	The WMD in it of itself was evil and why it had to be removed. In war you have to a certain disregard for the other guys personal safety...

08-11-2003, 03:05 PM	#57 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Since it looked appealing enough to liberals to mislabel and use as slander ammo against America =). __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-11-2003, 04:19 PM	#58 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	1998: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky - It was a blowjob. 2003: We never dropped napalm in Iraq - we used kerosene, not petrol.

08-11-2003, 04:26 PM	#59 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Wrong - the U.S. military does 'tend' to clump up together (during the pre-war). U.S. military installations across the world are much juicier targets for WMDs and it was a possible threat during the period of massing up. After of course it spreads out but thats not to say that most installations aren't together - because in truth, many are.

08-11-2003, 04:36 PM	#63 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	... which was the point of the post which was about nukes being used... Though I will tell you this - even with protective suits, many weapons don't even take 20 seconds to kill you, so if you're caught off guard, you're toast. Unless you are wearing the suit 24/7 which doesn't happen, you better be able to put that suit on within 10 seconds (not likely) before enough VX or sarin kills.

08-11-2003, 05:35 PM	#67 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Ho, ho. Quite the opposite. You would have seriously reworded your statement if you wanted to do anything else but defame our boys defending our nation. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-11-2003, 06:40 PM	#70 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Looks like backpeddling from a mean spirited attack on your own country to me. It's also easy for you to say this now, so I will allow you a chance to humor me on these exact words, how they relate to your wording, and why it's not meant to slander your country. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-11-2003, 08:51 PM	#74 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	You called me disgusting, and even if you did say I had contempt for nuns in general you would obviously be spinning, and I'd call you on it, but that's beside the point. They are also not chemical weapons in the sense that the agents petroleum, benzene, and polystyrene (the ingredients for napalm) are largely distilled from natural substances, or are natural substances. According to NATO, they are not chemical weapons. If they are, then so is laundry detergent. I'd be surprised if it mattered to you though, I believe the far left view on the military, and anything a conservative would support is skewed negatively, hence the anti-Bush anti-American sentiment. As for the article itself, you cannot call them liars, and there were no words to twist, napalm is not what they used. Albeit a technicality, your accusations are fundamentally not true. Furthermore, the mark 77 firebombs are apparently a very effective means of killing your enemy. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-11-2003, 08:54 PM	#75 (permalink)
Ace_of_Lobster Crazy	Hey lets defend anything our team does, because its our team and for no other reason. __________________ "Hundreds of men must have told you how beautiful you are. Would you displease the gods to hear it once more? I wouldn't. Im young and I hope to see a god before I die." -Patera Silk

08-11-2003, 10:27 PM	#77 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	The name calling aside, Napalm isn't a "chemical" weapon in the same sense as is generally meant when the military and government say "chemical" weapon. Harmless, by your definition (any weapon containing chemicals is a "chemical" weapon), then ALL modern weapons beyond a bayonnette are chemical weapons, as bullets and bombs all use chemical reactions in their functioning. There's a good reason when they say, "War is Hell". __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

08-11-2003, 10:28 PM	#78 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	To suggest that the Pentagon "lied" because it truthfully answered an incorrectly-stated question, is moronic. If you own a Ford Mustang, and I ask you if you own a Corvette, and you say "No, I do not own a Corvette", you aren't lying simply because you own another sports-car. The Pentagon should take questions at face value and not volunteer information which isn't requested -- it's their nature. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames