US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:16 PM
link   
How could they do that?! I mean we all know Iraq is incapable of reaching our Military technology, so therefore they could never beat us, so the apporpiate thing was to use the weapons that we use back the first Gulf War. Why must we use a weapon that eliminated so much, including Innocent Citizens who did not want part of this midleading, decieving war.
Much of this war has been fought with newly advance weapons, which in this case lead to victory, The Iraqis lost why the hell we still there? All that has happen is our troops being killed everyday!




posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Yeah they are Iraqi extremists/loyalists. Just think back to then they thought a plane went down in Baghdad, remember watching them firing clip after clip into the Tigris River and lighting the grass on fire? We certainly don't do that when we have a POW situation. Yeah that was a real humane way to capture the enemy as a POW. The napalm was part of the "Shock And Awe" era of the war. Yeah getting napalmed isnt a pleasant way to go but we were in war. Now if we decided to randomly napalm a civilian target then I can your "crime against humanity".



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Well, even if we HAD signed the treaty, we wouldn't have violated it, as nothing in the original post indicated use against CIVILIANS...only troops.


I'd have been more surprised if they DIDN'T use napalm....(or whatever they're calling it these days...hehe...
)



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lukefj
Mutilator,

if you look above you will see that the US did break several UN resolutions by using the "Napalm." I wonder how your tune would change if an Iraqi soldier made ti into the US and ignited a bunch of Napalm ina busy metropolitan area..hmmmmm, or a bridge full of people??

I doubt you would use the same argument, that they were in a state of war so they can use any means necessary. How about the "supposed" biological weapons...can they use those? What about nuclear weapons...those too? Under your logic that's fine.

It's fine as long as it's not in your back yard I guess.

[Edited on 11-8-2003 by Lukefj]


Sorry Lukefj, but we didn't napalm civilians or civilian targets, that wasn't the goal of the Iraqi war. If you think back you will remember that all of our targets were against the Iraqi Regime; "Surgical Bombing Attacks". We could have used our nukes and so on, but our beef wasn't with the Iraqi people, it was with the regime.



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lukefj
The fact is, it was Napalm, whether it was slightly modified or not, it produces the same results through the same process with slightly different ingredients. If that helps you sleep at night, fine, but don't try and pass it off as a different weapon, it is very much the same.


What do you mean,"If that helps you sleep at night"?
[size=100]I DID NOT DROP ANYTHING ON ANYONE!!!
I can't help what my government does any more then you can.

I sleep GOOD at night!

I wasn't even for the war!


[Edited on 11-8-2003 by Hyperspace]



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Well, even if we HAD signed the treaty, we wouldn't have violated it, as nothing in the original post indicated use against CIVILIANS...only troops.




Gazrok, the use of Napalm is forbidden even against soldiers when these dont have adequate cover...



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Most of this war was fought inhumane, but don't blame the troops, or the generals, blame the person who toke us to the war, costing us millions, and a drop in our economy. Waht was the reason for this war, we might speculate that Bush wanted to get back at Saddam for attempting to assasinate his Dad, so then upon that he misleads us by saying Iraq has WMD, then uses every weapon in his arsenal, killing thousands, all this just because Saddam tried to kill your daddy, then stealing the Iraqi only means of resources(oil)


There is no what else he's going to do next



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Midnight Mutilator
The only difference is we napalmed our enemy, who were fighting back at us. Sad'am and Hitler attacked and killed defenseless innocent people. So in my opinion, the innocent and defenseless people what were gassed and burned under the hands of Hitler and Sad'am's regimes had it worse then the Iraqi extremists that were napalmed when fighting back against US troops.


Iraqi army.. was "defenseless".. they didnt have any real means to shot down US planes attacking them.. even if they had some SAM:S and FIGHTERS that could have been used to shot down USAF they sertainly didnt have the "know how"..

and "Iraqi extremists" please.. these people just tried to do what every good citizen would do if his/hers nation came under attack from oil thirsty FACISTS.. Try to repel the INVADERS.. that IRAQI FREEDOM thing total BS!



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Midnight Mutilator
Yeah they are Iraqi extremists/loyalists. Just think back to then they thought a plane went down in Baghdad, remember watching them firing clip after clip into the Tigris River and lighting the grass on fire? We certainly don't do that when we have a POW situation. Yeah that was a real humane way to capture the enemy as a POW. The napalm was part of the "Shock And Awe" era of the war. Yeah getting napalmed isnt a pleasant way to go but we were in war. Now if we decided to randomly napalm a civilian target then I can your "crime against humanity".


MM, you are getting irrational .. can i interpret that as you surrendering to the force of our arguments ?

Face it, your mad general "Franks" and your mad politicians doomed defenseless regular iraqi soldiers who were only defending their homeland against illegal US aggression on purpose of stealing their oil to a horrible death by banned weapons so they could get their "psychological impact".





[Edited on 11-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:39 PM
link   
America clearly doesn't give 2 hoots about the rest of the world. Take the Steel tariff for example.

www.voanews.com...

Also, the continued development of nuclear weapons (mass destruction?) and illegal holding of foreign citizens, completely without human rights.

The US has wanted to take a middle east country for the oil for some time. Dick Chaney's company got all the oil rights, suspicious...

So, while I love America and Americans in general (having lived there for a long time). I do find that now I live away from the US, I see how the government forces its will on the rest of the world.

This is just my opinion, I don't mean to insult others. I was very nearly killed less than an hour ago when a truck suddenly pulled out and forced me on to the grass between the lanes on the highway. I spun, but recovered and carried on. I'm trembling like a leaf and a bit emotional, so forgive me, everything is a bit intense at the moment.

*heads off for a good smoke*



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:43 PM
link   
"defenseless"? They had the weaponry to fire SCUDS into Kuwait they weren't "defenseless". They also managed to down a few choppers and kill some our troops, they were far from "defenseless". I do not surrender my argument, the Iraqi regime had links to terrorism and that is why we went in there, in my opinion. Yeah Bush said WMD but that wasn't the main reason. WMD probably will turn up but the main reason we went int was links to terrorism and 9/11 regardless of what Bush said.



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Civilians were not targeted

Maybe if the UN could ban 'adequate cover' we wouldn't have to use napalm.


I just don't see the big deal in all this. Its a war zone what do you guys really expect? If it wasnt napalm it could have very easily be another type of ordnance. Perhaps napalm was the best tool to use thereby limiting coalition danger? Maybe its just me but when in a war isnt it the objective to eliminate the enemy? Like that story said: they could have surrendered.

Again, civilians weren't targeted, yet, I do remember Fedayeen using civilians as shields but I don't see any outrage from some of you over that!



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:45 PM
link   
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.


Yesss!
napalm rawks.

you smell that gasoline smell? smell's like victory!



Oh I'm sorry,
does the widdew war have bombs that kiww?
just cover your ears and drop the kids off in the pool and ignore it all.



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Midnight Mutilator
"defenseless"? They had the weaponry to fire SCUDS into Kuwait they weren't "defenseless". They also managed to down a few choppers and kill some our troops, they were far from "defenseless". I do not surrender my argument, the Iraqi regime had links to terrorism and that is why we went in there, in my opinion. Yeah Bush said WMD but that wasn't the main reason. WMD probably will turn up but the main reason we went int was links to terrorism and 9/11 regardless of what Bush said.


No Scuds were fired, that was a Fox News Hoax, only Al-Samoud (Which Saddam Hussein was actively dismantling because they exceeded the maximum range by 10 miles at the time iraq was attacked)."iraqis far from defenseless" "WMD will probably be found" "Links to 9/11" Have you spent the last six months in the woods ? Excuse me but that would be a good laugh if we werent talking about crimes against humanity. Seriously what are you trying here .. ?



[Edited on 11-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
Civilians were not targeted

Maybe if the UN could ban 'adequate cover' we wouldn't have to use napalm.


I just don't see the big deal in all this. Its a war zone what do you guys really expect? If it wasnt napalm it could have very easily be another type of ordnance. Perhaps napalm was the best tool to use thereby limiting coalition danger? Maybe its just me but when in a war isnt it the objective to eliminate the enemy? Like that story said: they could have surrendered.

Again, civilians weren't targeted, yet, I do remember Fedayeen using civilians as shields but I don't see any outrage from some of you over that!


Bob sums up my points nicely, I couldn't say it any better.



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:55 PM
link   
It's amazing how many off you have papped in your knickers over this, when all I can see is one unverified news report.

Anyone got any more links or proof?

Until I see anything that tells me otherwise, this story goes in the liberal propaganda bs file.

Not that it makes any difference if it is true.
War is hell, after all.



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:56 PM
link   
what about that 'seer sucker' missible fired? (it hit a Kuwait mall)

And, luckily most missiles were taken out before Saddam could launch them. That was a huge objective Mok.



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
It's amazing how many off you have papped in your knickers over this, when all I can see is one unverified news report.

Anyone got any more links or proof?

Until I see anything that tells me otherwise, this story goes in the liberal propaganda bs file.

Not that it makes any difference if it is true.
War is hell, after all.



Ever faithful leveller, there is another thread on the subject full of news reports...



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
what about that 'seer sucker' missible fired? (it hit a Kuwait mall)



Bob. You should know by now that unless it suits Mok's agenda, no Seer Suckers were fired.
Black is white where he's concerned.



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Blah Blah Blah!

Bombs are designed to kill people.

Death by incineration is no more or less unhumane than death by dismemberment, shock, or shrapnel.

People killed by conventional bombs also die slow deaths sometimes, and it is usually very painful.

Such is the fortunes of war.

If the UN doesn't like napalm, too fricken bad. It was probably Cambodia, Libya and Iran who voted to ban it. If we listened to the UN every time they started yapping like a pack of poodles that they are, we would probably reemble some spine-less, gut-less, enfeebled socialist state like that got all over the place on "the continent" over there. Bah!

And what is this "admits" crap? The US has never covered up the use of napalm, for the simple reason that it is a cheap and effective way to kill our enemies.

If you don't wanna be hit with napalm, then don't cross us. You may also get hit by cluster bombs, flechette weapons, fuel-air explosives, and over-pressure weapons for that matter.

As far as I am concerned murderous, evil people supporting muderous, evil regimes deserve to get fried. And if you think the US is a muderous, evil regime, come on over and drop some napalm on us. We won't complain. You just better be ready to suck it up on the flip side..





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join