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

HarmlessRabbit · 08-10-2003, 02:33 PM

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

Quote:

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
10 August 2003

American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war.

The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad.

"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."

A reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald who witnessed another napalm attack on 21 March on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill, close to the Kuwaiti border, wrote the following day: "Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. 'I pity anyone who is in there,' a Marine sergeant said. 'We told them to surrender.'"

At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. "We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on 4 April, 2001," it said.

The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war.

"Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon," said Robert Musil, director of the organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility. "It takes up an awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds." Mr Musil said denial of its use "fits a pattern of deception [by the US administration]".

The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.

Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their use would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted they were "remarkably similar" to napalm but said they caused less environmental damage.

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".

Mr Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the weapons was outrageous. He said: "It's Orwellian. They do not want the public to know. It's a lie."

In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in the war.

Silvy · 08-10-2003, 02:35 PM

one word: bastards!

BigGov · 08-10-2003, 02:55 PM

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

Quote:

They were Iraqi soldiers.

Quote:

'We told them to surrender.'

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?

HarmlessRabbit · 08-10-2003, 03:23 PM

Quote:

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.

rainheart · 08-10-2003, 04:09 PM

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.

BigGov · 08-10-2003, 04:16 PM

Quote:

"Weapon of mass destruction" means any of the following destructive devices:

(1) A device that contains:

(A) an explosive;

(B) an incendiary; or

(C) a toxic or poisonous chemical, biological disease, organism, or virus.

(2) A bomb.

(3) A grenade.

(4) A rocket having a propellant charge of more than four (4) ounces.

(5) A missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than twenty-five hundredths (0.25) ounce.

(6) A mine.

(7) An aerosol spraying mechanism or other device capable of

disseminating a poisonous chemical, biological disease, organism, or virus.

(8) A weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life."

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.

titsmurf · 08-10-2003, 04:26 PM

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.

Shagg · 08-10-2003, 04:28 PM

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.

Quote:

These Military Chemicals are Not Considered to be Chemical Weapons
Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy. Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use. Plants, microorganisms, algae, etc. which produce toxins are not classed as chemical weapons even if the produced toxins belong to that class. Pathogenic microorganisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as biological weapons.

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

seretogis · 08-10-2003, 04:43 PM

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

Stare At The Sun · 08-10-2003, 05:04 PM

*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_Dude · 08-10-2003, 05:06 PM

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

Phaenx · 08-10-2003, 05:45 PM

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.

Macheath · 08-10-2003, 06:02 PM

They should call it freedom jelly.

sixate · 08-10-2003, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
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.

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.

reconmike · 08-10-2003, 06:16 PM

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.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-10-2003, 06:54 PM

Quote:

They should call it freedom jelly.

that made me laugh out loud, thanks.

BigGov · 08-10-2003, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by titsmurf
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.

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.

MacGnG · 08-10-2003, 07:02 PM

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

titsmurf · 08-10-2003, 07:12 PM

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)

Kadath · 08-10-2003, 07:19 PM

< 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 >

Phaenx · 08-10-2003, 07:19 PM

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.

BigGov · 08-10-2003, 07:20 PM

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.

Phaenx · 08-10-2003, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
< 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 >

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.

degarg · 08-10-2003, 07:23 PM

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..

HarmlessRabbit · 08-10-2003, 07:25 PM

Quote:

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.

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

Kadath · 08-10-2003, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
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.

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!

BigGov · 08-10-2003, 07:27 PM

Quote:

their massive stores of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons

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.

Phaenx · 08-10-2003, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
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!

Boo, I made a hilarious emote and EVERYTHING.

titsmurf · 08-10-2003, 07:34 PM

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!

HarmlessRabbit · 08-10-2003, 07:39 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Zeld2.0 · 08-10-2003, 07:49 PM

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.

BigGov · 08-10-2003, 07:58 PM

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

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

Their time will come.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-10-2003, 08:06 PM

Quote:

No, they don't have that many, but they have some.

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.

BigGov · 08-10-2003, 08:18 PM

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.

Shagg · 08-10-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0

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.

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.

Quote:

One problem with using radiation as a tactical anti-personnel weapon is that to bring about rapid incapacitation of the target, a radiation dose that is many times the lethal level must be administered. A radiation dose of 600 rads is normally considered lethal (it will kill at least half of those who are exposed to it), but no effect is noticeable for several hours. Neutron bombs were intended to deliver a dose of 8000 rads to produce immediate and permanent incapacitation. A 1 kt ER warhead can do this to a T-72 tank crew at a range of 690 m, compared to 360 m for a pure fission bomb. For a "mere" 600 rad dose the distances are 1100 m and 700 m respectively, and for unprotected soldiers 600 rad exposures occur at 1350 m and 900 m. The lethal range for tactical neutron bombs exceeds the lethal range for blast and heat even for unprotected troops.

The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloy steels used in armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours. If a tank exposed to a 1 kt neutron bomb at 690 m (the effective range for immediate crew incapacitation) is immediately occupied by a new crew, they will receive a lethal dose of radiation within 24 hours.

Newer armor designs afford more protection than the Soviet T-72 against with ER warheads were initially targeted. Special neutron absorbing armor techniques have also been developed and deployed, such as armors containing boronated plastics and the use of vehicle fuel as a shield. Some newer types of armor, like that of the M-1 tank, employ depleted uranium which can offset these improvements since it undergoes fast fission, generating additional neutrons and becoming radioactive.

Due to the rapid attenuation of neutron energy by the atmosphere (it drops by a factor of 10 every 500 m in addition to the effects of spreading) ER weapons are only effective at short ranges, and thus are found in relatively low yields. ER warheads are also designed to minimize the amount of fission energy and blast effect produced relative to the neutron yield. The principal reason for this was to allow their use close to friendly forces. The common perception of the neutron bomb as a "landlord bomb" that would kill people but leave buildings undamaged is greatly overstated. At the intended effective combat range (690 m) the blast from a 1 kt neutron bomb will destroy or damage to the point of unusability almost any civilian building. Thus the use of neutron bombs to stop an enemy attack, which requires exploding large numbers of them to blanket the enemy forces, would also destroy all buildings in the area.

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.

Dragonlich · 08-10-2003, 08:57 PM

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.

BigGov · 08-10-2003, 11:24 PM

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

Lebell · 08-10-2003, 11:36 PM

The Slap-fest between some of you needs to stop.

Moderate yourselves or be moderated.

zenmaster10665 · 08-11-2003, 01:56 AM

Quote:

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. [/B]

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

almostaugust · 08-11-2003, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Macheath
They should call it freedom jelly.

Gold Jerry. Gold.

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

08-10-2003, 02:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
Silvy paranoid Location: The Netherlands	one word: bastards! __________________ "Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. " - Murphy MacManus (Boondock Saints)

08-10-2003, 04:43 PM	#9 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	EverQuest fans will understand what I mean when I call this a_hysterical_and_nonsensical_exagerration_0348. __________________ 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

08-10-2003, 05:06 PM	#11 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	the US goes to war claiming iraq had chemical weap's and we use chem-type weapons?? this is sad. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-10-2003, 05:45 PM	#12 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	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. __________________ "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

08-10-2003, 06:16 PM	#15 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	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. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

08-10-2003, 04:09 PM	#5 (permalink)
rainheart Psycho	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.

08-10-2003, 04:26 PM	#7 (permalink)
titsmurf Crazy Location: Belgium	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.

08-10-2003, 05:04 PM	#10 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	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...

08-10-2003, 06:02 PM	#13 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	They should call it freedom jelly.

08-10-2003, 07:02 PM	#18 (permalink)
MacGnG Know Where!	OMG napalm, i was thinking some sort of chemical gas.... napalm isnt that big a deal considering how it was used.

08-10-2003, 07:12 PM	#19 (permalink)
titsmurf Crazy Location: Belgium	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)

08-10-2003, 07:19 PM	#20 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	< 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 > __________________ it's quiet in here Last edited by hrdwareguy; 08-15-2003 at 01:01 PM..

08-10-2003, 07:19 PM	#21 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	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. __________________ "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

08-10-2003, 07:20 PM	#22 (permalink)
BigGov WoW or Class... Location: UWW	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. __________________ One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

08-10-2003, 07:23 PM	#24 (permalink)
degarg Tilted	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..

08-10-2003, 07:34 PM	#29 (permalink)
titsmurf Crazy Location: Belgium	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!

08-10-2003, 07:49 PM	#31 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	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.

08-10-2003, 08:18 PM	#34 (permalink)
BigGov WoW or Class... Location: UWW	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. __________________ One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

08-10-2003, 08:57 PM	#36 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	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.

08-10-2003, 11:24 PM	#37 (permalink)
BigGov WoW or Class... Location: UWW	Maybe like WWI, or like the pre-Civil War era of line-em up and shoot. Tactics back then were just ungentimenly. __________________ One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

08-10-2003, 11:36 PM	#38 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	The Slap-fest between some of you needs to stop. Moderate yourselves or be moderated. __________________ "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!