Found THIS PAGE while poking around the net to answer the definition of 'chemical' weapons.

This of course is not a comment on the correctness/incorrectness of using Napalm in warfare.

Of course, they didn't use "napalm" so this doesn't address whether whatever they used was a chemical weapon. ;) =)

obviously, we disagree on this point, as I do think they were lying, spinning, and being intentionally misleading to the public, which is a terrible thing to do during a war.

from Phaenx:
from the article:
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.

Harmless....im speculating here because ive never been in the position but i imagine if i was huddled behind a sand dune considering the entrenched enemy a couple hundred yards ahead i would be much more comfortable with the idea of them burning to death than myself and/or a bunch of my buddys getting shot to hell digging them out of there. War is not pretty. At the most basic level the object is to kill the enemys people and break his things and not let him do the same to yours. Dropping flaming death upon him from the sky is a very effective way to do this as well as hopefully breaking his will to fight which will save lives on both sides.

just something to think about.

shalafi:

whether or not napalm is legitimate or not is another matter...

they DO have other weapons for taking out those bunkers/trenches - and many are more effective now at sealing em up for good

the difference now is IMo whether or not the military loves to lie about what it does

for all you know right now it has a buncha concentration camps and the public would never know

<b>just something to think about.</b>

I'm curious where you draw the line? I don't mean to be inflammatory, but I'm honestly curious. Are the following things ok?

- Burning the enemy to death using flaming gel to clear a bridge approach
- Using sarin nerve gas to kill the enemy? Using it in a mixed area with civilians in it?
- Using anthrax to eliminate the enemy.
- Assasinating the enemy leaders? The leader's family?
- Feeding enemies through plastic shredders in front of their children?
- Forcing the children of an enemy to shoot their parents?
- Passing prisoners of war off to countries that allow torture in order to get confessions
- Imprisoning citizens for years without access to lawyers or family

Remember, we got into this war because Hussein was a "bad guy".

HarmlessRabbit, that's probably the silliest post I've ever read.

I wonder where *you* draw the line? Are the following things okay?

- Burning/suffocating people to death with napalm
- Cutting people in half with an M-16 or M-60 burst
- Blowing people's limbs off with a grenade
- Cutting open someone's belly with a knife
- disintegrating someone with a 155 mm artillery shell
- disintegrating someone with a 500-pound bomb
- burning people to death by hitting their tank/APC with an anti-tank round/missile

See? You don't need to bring out those silly WMDs or torture examples to show that war is nasty. Do you seriously think that napalm is any worse than the other examples I mentioned?

Zeld, HR,

First off, the "military" is made up of people just like you and me. When you take the oath, they don't zapp your brain and make you a mindless killer. Nobody likes killing. It is only when our government, elected by the people, tells us to that we fight.

The military is a very technical place, definitions mean a lot, they have to. Now in this particular case I would say that the line was crossed in saying that napalm was not used. The person responsible should be reprimanded.

Now on to napalm. Napalm is not a chemical weapon. Does it have a psychological effect? You bet, so does watching your buddy get shot in front of you. The primary mechanism by which Napalm acts is burning, just like white phosphorous, Thermite, and many other incendiary agents.

The toxic effect of napalm is irrelevant, rather akin to the effects of lead poisoning that a bullet wound inflicts.

Napalm is not a weapon of mass destruction. It is a targeted weapon capable of destroying entrenched enemy forces. It is the best one at doing that.

Zeld, the public would know, because if the military was running concentration camps, people in th emilitary would be as outraged as you or I would be.

Do not blame the military for the faults of the government that controls it.

Other than the first example, which of those is relevant to the US action against Iraq?

three of those, in addition to the first one, are directly related to the actions of the USA in the war against "terrorism". I'll leave it to you to decide which three.

i'm just curious where everyone's moral compass is. It appears to me that shalafi was saying that during a war you can do <b>anything</b> to the enemy.

The general idea is to make them dead. Whatever is most prudent or efficient is what we should use, I don't believe we should be concerned with how our enemy feels about it.

Absolutely not. We are bound by the Law of Land Warfare, comprising the Hague and Geneva conventions. There are very specific rules we have to play by, even if the enemy doesn't.

And looking back over the above list, only the first example has occured.

How would you clear it? Kindly ask them to move for a few minutes so we can roll through?

<b>And looking back over the above list, only the first example has occured.</b>

Ah, you're wrong, sir. Besides the first one, one was contemplated and publicly discussed, one was done in Afghanistan and publicly admitted by the US military, and one is going on today.

<b>How would you clear it? Kindly ask them to move for a few minutes so we can roll through?</b>

I have made my position clear. Napalm is a chemical weapon and shouldn't be used under any circumstances. Are you saying the only way to clear a bridge is by using napalm? Tell that to the rest of the world, which doesn't use it.

This wouldnt be an interesting dicussion if Napalm was considering a "chemical weapon," but it isn't. God damn, you liberal crybabies will bitch about anything huh?

Would you mind clarifying which ones you are speaking of, because you have lost me.

<b>Would you mind clarifying which ones you are speaking of, because you have lost me.</b>

Nah, it's off-topic for this thread, so I'll leave it to you as a mystery. :)

<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!