USA admits to dropping chemical weapons on Iraq
 

Wow, this story is huge.

After denying dropping napalm on the Iraqis, the US is now admitting to its use. The USA is one of the only countries left that uses napalm in battle, in fact, a UN convention banned it in 1980, but the USA did not sign on.

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?

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_re...&host=3&dir=70

one word: bastards!

Napalm is hardly a WMD, especially not the way it was used.

Soldiers were warned, they didn't comply, so we followed through on our promise. Better than dropping MOAB's on all Iraqi cities isn't it?

You're mixing quotes from two different incidents. In the first, bombs were dropped on dozens of bridges to clear them for marine approaches. No mention of surrender is made there. In a separate incident, napalm was used on an observation post, and that is where surrender is mentioned. In both cases, the US armed forces denied using napalm until recently, going so far as to issue an official denial.

Napalm not a WMD? I wonder what the USA reaction would be if Iraq napalmed a bunch of US soldiers, or if hundreds of gallons of napalm was found in a warehouse in Iraq.

Wait a minute, now what's important and stands out to me here is that they lied about not using napalm.

But what I don't get is why? Why would they deny using napalm, I don't understand that part and furthermore I don't believe napalm is a WMD, at least hardly in the same sense that a nuclear weapon or biological weapon can be.

That's one definition of WMD. So yes, we did use WMD's against Iraq, however, we've confiscated thousands of WMD's already according to this, so Bush was 100% right.

What really qualifies as a WMD: Biological (IE: Anthrax), or Nuclear.

Oh, and how hard is it for Iraq to hide them? UN Inspectors have told of when they found items they were buried and had a tarp placed over them. The ONLY way they found them is because people told them. They have said over and over that there is absolutely no chance they would have found them otherwise. That it would be harder than finding a needle in a haystack.

Of course, is this mentioned at all by the media? A few times late at night, and that's about it.

If any of your denial specialists try to make torching people into a good thing, I'm going to personally... I can't finish that sentence without breaking the forum rules.

You don't burn people! It's bad enough that you have to kill people without making turning their last minutes on earth hell.
'Psychological warfare' can kiss my ass. It's inhumane, and I think the USA would do well to quickly sign that treaty.

Doubt there would be much reaction if we found napalm. Them using it against us is a moot point since the only effective way of using it is from the air. US troops haven't been under an air attack since Korea.

And no napalm is not a WMD. For that matter it isn't even classified as a chemical weapon.


http://www.opcw.org/ is the source. For the specfic text run a search for napalm on the site.

EverQuest fans will understand what I mean when I call this a_hysterical_and_nonsensical_exagerration_0348.

*shrugs* kinda bastardly that they did that to those people, im still totally opposed to the war, and what bush did, but to drop napalm on them, jebus, those poor guys. Oh well, it sucks too that the media isnt going to cover this at all. they should remove their heads from dubya's ass...

the US goes to war claiming iraq had chemical weap's and we use chem-type weapons?? this is sad.

It's only a big story if the opposition decides to cry about it. Me, I'm glad we still use said weapon. Quick, efficient, brutal. All good things for making war.

They should call it freedom jelly.

Right!

The thing people need to realize is we'll only use this shit for war. Not for terrorist activities. There is a difference and if you can't tell that there is a difference then there's really no point in getting in an argument over it.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning...it smells like victory.

The treaty was for CIVILIAN people not enemy troops, where does it say we dropped it on civilians?

They say roasting Iraqis smell like chicken.

that made me laugh out loud, thanks.

No need to sign the treaty.

We told them when we were going to roll in. They had time to surrender.

We unleased that whole "Shock and Awe" campaign. They saw what was going to happen to them.

If they made the stupid decision to stay against us after all that, then we just gave them what they wanted.

OMG napalm, i was thinking some sort of chemical gas.... napalm isnt that big a deal considering how it was used.

It's so nice to see the American people truly care about the fates of those , how shall we put it... 'lesser' people. Because that's what they are, aren't they? God forbid an American soldier come home in a bodybag. But it's no biggie to fry the rest of them.

It's no double standard, no siree. It's, hmm... it's 'freedom'!

I'm sorry, my friends - but if you feel that using napalm is sound, effective and whatnot, then I'm afraid I'll have to conclude that ramming planes through twin towers is exactly the same thing. It's quite efficient, isn't it? And what are a few deaths when they're not even your own 'kind'.

For god sake, people. Show a little compassion! Imagine those soldiers to be friends of yours. I'm sure you'd rather see them imprisoned, or if need be to die on the battlefield, than to just see them go up in flames which they did not even see coming.

(And don't give me any crap about 'but they were warned'. Desertion equals death)

< sarcasm >
Oh no, titsmurf, Iraqis aren't human beings same as us, they don't deserve compassion. They're all animals, need a good dose of flaming justice to put the fear of our one true God in them. They got what they deserved.
So this is how the other half lives. It sure is comfortable up here on the moral high ground...

< /sarcasm >

Not exactly, kamikaze missions were a huge loss for Japan.

Compassion for a resisting enemy is a good way to get shot as well. No dice, they surrender or get set on fire.

Then rebell. If you're going to die either way, step up and save your ass, but if you shoot at an American, you're going to die. Plain and simple.

And you're approving of terrorists killing COMPLETELY INNOCENT Americans? Oh wait, they're Americans, never mind, they're guilty of being full of themselves or something.

If they're out cheering on the street on 09/11/01, I'm concerned that napalm is too damn nice. They should suffer much more IMO.

Hahaha, I bet it is comfortable up there. I'm sure we'll be taking the blame for attacking other peoples opinions later on this week sometime as well, I'll have to reference this. :icare:

ouch.. napalm.. not much of a choice for the iraqi soldiers.. Iraqi propoganda told them they the americans would kill them if they surrender.. they were brainwashed into doing what they believed was patriotic for their country.. if they gave up and were caught by other iraqi forces they would be killed on the spot.. so.. I guess they were royally screwed..

Yeah, Iraq is getting just what they deserve for masterminding the 9/11 attacks and for their massive stores of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons!

Burn 'em all! Start with the nuns!

/sarcasm

You can feel free to write that down in your freedom journal, but as you might have noticed I've pretty much stepped away from this free-for-all since it seems like there isn't much of a difference to be made. I look forward to having my words thrown back at me. RAWR!

If you're going to trust the media for your information, you need help. If you're going to trust UN Inspectors, then you'd know they're destroyed or, most likely, buried.

And they didn't mastermind it, but if they approve of it, they're just as bad IMO.

Boo, I made a hilarious emote and EVERYTHING.

I'm sure God, who as we all know is totally behind everything the USA does, couldn't agree more. May the USA continue to shine it's beacon of moral superiority over the rest of the poor, retarded world.

You go, Uncle Sam! Fry some for the boys back home!

Hee hee you sound like Art Bell. Yes, a massive conspiracy from the liberal media is covering up for saddam's hundreds of nukes hidden is deep silos.

So you're in favor of immediate war against Saudi Arabia, since they were the ones directly responsible? Yes? No?


I'm just amazed at all the people posting here think the proper way for the world's most powerful army to clear a bridge is to drop flaming napalm onto an urban area.

Christ the way people are talking on this thread is a great reason why people hate our arrogance.

Great, I just LOVE all the arguments being thrown out on both sides here.

First - napalm isn't a chemical weapon - well technically it is but its no in the same department as the chemical weapons for WMD (as in sarin, mustard gas, etc.).

Second - the argument that the Iraqi's deserve it and what not is overshadowed by another fact (see below) - and laughing about other people being burned (hell these were supposed to be our 'allies' who were to rise up and join us) isn't so great if you end up on the receiving end (i think we should see our country lose a few wars, get bobmed at home repeatedly, then everyone here won't feel so high and proud anymore..).

Now the point of this thread is, NOT that the U.S. used it - but rather the fact that the GOV'T said that it DIDN'T use it - only now to have people come out and say that they DID indeed use it.

To me, thats the disturbing part - what other weapons did they use? Some Iraqi's said we used the neutron bomb on them - farfetched somewhat, but others say not really - they claimed the soldiers turned into skeletons instantly at the airport at baghdad, hence the "mass" units there suddenly disappeared.

I find that somewhat farfetched BUT its possible - a neutron bomb is very very clean, leaves little radiation, does not damage structures, and so its very possible.

But thats whats disturbing - the fact the gov't lies repeatedly. And don't make an argument that the other party lies too - its a fact that all of them lie, but thats what is bad - the gov't is willing to deceive the people to get its ends.

Some democracy we live in eh.

No, they don't have that many, but they have some. There have been studies and they show there is overall a slight liberal media bias over the past 30 years. But can you think on your own for a second? Why would they have all these scientists that specialize in biological weapons and nuclear weapons? They were having them over for tea and crumpets?

Their time will come.

And who approved of it? Bush? It's all some big conspiracy that the White House is covering up? The Military uses what it uses, the politicians probably didn't make it clear enough that they didn't want to use napalm and other such weapons. Are they going to go through the media to critize them? No, they're going to do that behind doors.

And I'm pretty sure we dropped some MOAB's on them. Those are just normal, everyday 11-ton bombs. These things are so big it creates a mushroom cloud. Could that be what we dropped? Yes.

Oh, and for all these people tossing the word democracy around, we live in a Republic. Please, go back to a high school government class and learn the basics before trying to debate.

If you're talking about nukes, then you have officially gone into my "ignore the looney" file. Not even the most ardent neocon is currently claiming that Iraq has nukes.

The UN weapons inspectors back in the EARLY 1990's were shocked by how far along Iraq was with their nuclear weapons program. It's been 10 years. I wouldn't be surprised, but I wouldn't bet on it either. They did have biological weapons though.

Actually, not very possible. This quote is going to be a fairly big one, but it's necessary to do justice to the topic. I put the most important section in bold.

this is an exerpt from:
Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions
Version 2.16: 1 May 1998
COPYRIGHT CAREY SUBLETTE

which can be found @ http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html

This is a great source of information on nukes, I would seriously advise anybody commenting on the effects of nukes to check this out.

Napalm is NOT a WMD by any stretch of the imagination. It is a "chemical weapon" in that it contains chemicals. So do bullets, grenades, bombs and basically any weapon these days.

Napalm is nasty, but so is being blown to bits by shrapnel from an artillery shell, being utterly obliterated in a B-52 raid, or being cut in half by a burst from a modern assault rifle.

War is nasty; the goal is to win it as quickly as possibly, with as little damage to your side as possible. The *only* way to do that is to utterly destroy the enemy's will to fight. That means using overwhelming force, "shock and awe", and using napalm to clear trenches, bunkers and other hiding places.

If two countries decide to fight "fair" by giving the other side an equal chance... then you'd get a situation like the stalemate of WW1, resulting in millions of deaths on both sides. Thank god we're not *that* stupid anymore.

Maybe like WWI, or like the pre-Civil War era of line-em up and shoot. Tactics back then were just ungentimenly.

Very interesting site...led me to some other links...

Gold Jerry. Gold.


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