US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Jesus Christ, will you stop misquoting me? I in no way said i don't value human life. Please, please for everything that is holy, stop misquoting me.




posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Here's the 64 million dollar question:
Ethical or not ethical....who or whom is going to hold the US accountable? Voters? Other nations? The UN?

regards
seekerof


All these war crimes will perhaps be judged by a court, but they will certainly be judged by history and by the people of earth, including the American. They are also certainly being judged by the iraqi resistance and by islamic fundamentalists.



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I merely posed the question because with all the people grumbling about this, with very few nation's if any at all commenting in discontent over the use of MK-77's, it seems that 'inhumane' must be defined differently from what we are describing it here in this discussion.
Is the term 'inhumane' defined differently among individuals such as us as compared to governments interpretations of 'inhumane'? Point being, why is not any other country formally making a stand to the UN or any other governing body over this?

Thanks for your comment Moku.

regards
seekerof



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I was wondering what 7 pages of crap looked like,
thanks


before i only had this to reference it by.




posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fury
I was wondering what 7 pages of crap looked like,
thanks


before i only had this to reference it by.

Fury dude y you do that, I can smell it from over here! EH!



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Good grief Fury....
Someone might want to see if that is within UN or Geneva Convention accordance.


regards
seekerof



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Good grief Fury....
Someone might want to see if that is within UN or Geneva Convention accordance.


regards
seekerof


talk bout your weapons of mass destruction...



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fury

talk bout your weapons of mass destruction...



Weapons of a$$ destruction, maybe....



-B.



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Actually, that might fall under the case of: "is forbidden even against soldiers when they don't have adequate cover....."


regards
seekerof



posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee

Originally posted by Fury

talk bout your weapons of mass destruction...



Weapons of a$$ destruction, maybe....



-B.



azz obstruction?


zed

posted on Aug, 11 2003 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Here's the 64 million dollar question:
Ethical or not ethical....who or whom is going to hold the US accountable? Voters? Other nations? The UN?

regards
seekerof
No one. America won and winners don't get accused of war crimes. Just look at all the other wars.



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 04:15 PM
link   
The question of what will happen is a good one. In fact it might make some people in the US government nervous. Luckily the answer provided by some of you is a funny one. "Tried for war crimes". I'd love to see that.

Thanks for the laugh folks.



posted on Aug, 25 2003 @ 08:44 PM
link   
when will you all learn that war is hell? and dont go bitching about the civilains that get killed in war. you obviously dont care about the english, french, russian, polish cavilians that were killed during the Blitz in WWII. CIVILIANS GET KILLED IN WAR. there will never be a war in which there are no cvilian deaths. its been that way ever sence warfare has existed! and it will remain that way.

[Edited on 26-8-2003 by KrazyIvan]



posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fury
Yesss!
napalm rawks.

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




"i love the smell of napalm in the morning"



posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by zed

Originally posted by Seekerof
Here's the 64 million dollar question:
Ethical or not ethical....who or whom is going to hold the US accountable? Voters? Other nations? The UN?

regards
seekerof
No one. America won and winners don't get accused of war crimes. Just look at all the other wars.



exactly! look at the geramsn when tye lost. they had all the criminals tried a nurnburg. the winners will never be accused of war crimes. look that the soviets in WWII. they treated german POW's (if they took any at all) like absolute # and they got away with it cause they were on the winning side.



posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 05:38 PM
link   


Stop worrying guys.
love teh bomb.



posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 05:43 PM
link   
When are you bleeding hearts going to start channeling dead people to tell us how much worse it was to die by a 3000 degree fireball as opposed to a bleeding stomach wound from a rifle?

You really are stretching things a bit with this "Napalm is bad" crap. Guess what.....War is bad, people die.
Get over the nitpicking over how we have to kill people and spend your energies on ways to make us not have to kill them.
How's that?



posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I still think napalm kicks some major ass.
I know, I wrote my name in the driveway with it when i was 15...



posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Why should we care what the UN and all of you socialist commie freaks think? You guys who assault every detail of our little walk through Iraq have an anti-american agenda anyway! Heres a news flash for you bedwetters WE DIDNT ASK FOR YOUR ADVICE!!! We dont care how "HUMANE" you would be if you were fighting the war! We dont care how you would do it! You are not doing it,you didnt do it, and what you did do lead to the need for a war in the first place!
I think this talk of "warcrimes" poop needs to end rather quickly A SOLDIER WHO IS ARMED AND HAS NOT SURRENDERED IS A TARGET!!!period end of story!!
Another question! Since when is an armed combatant who is activly supporting a resistance to an invasion considered "innocent"?
Were I resisting an invasion of the US with my firearms reguardless of uniform or lack of rank I would be a TARGET!! I would not be innocent! Unarmed civilians who do not offer resistance and do not provide comfort to those who do are innocent. Everyone else should and will be delt with to various degrees depending on the severity of the charge!


It's funny how the envious and weak will knash their teeth when the US is wielding the sword of liberty but when the forces of tyranny are rampant they bow and appease and turn a blind eye!



posted on Aug, 30 2003 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fury



Stop worrying guys.
love teh bomb.


Mein Fuhur! I can WALK!

[Edited on 31-8-2003 by KrazyIvan]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join