Napalm in Iraq?

"Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.

But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position.""

US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

news.independent.co.uk...

Napalm has not been used in Iraq. That’s simple propaganda.

Napalm is used for clearing vegetation and to get at enemies hidden in vegetation.

Its absurd to me that a story of this nature can even get as far as it has, let alone trick people like you and them into believing it.

You have been duped and you don’t even know it.

In a war zone there are about 1 billion ways to get burns and burn related injuries.

The use of napalm in Iraq is nothing but leftist propaganda.

I would be embarrassed to be tricked as bad as you have been.

if napalm was used, u be seeing cities burning completely like Tokyo or other cities that was firebombed during WW2.

www.globalsecurity.org...

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.

"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."

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.

www.alternet.org...

The Pentagon officials trying to squirm it's way out of the situation ? they had repeatedly denied using napalm during the war ? by claiming that the "Mark 77 firebombs" are "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons, but technically not the same.

electroniciraq.net...

upgraded version eh? like it must be less hotter weapon . so it aint napalm by the Pentagon but a minimal napalm.

Napalm is an incediadry weapon, but it is not the only incediary weapon used. Tracers for example are incediary weapons. Fuel-air bombs are incendiary weapons. (And very effective in Arid, dry eviroments like IRaq)

The United states is one of the few countries who have not signed the part of the Geneva convetions banning incediary weapons. So besides morality and human rights issues there is nothing wrong with it

I was about to say that the U.S. has not signed any treaty banning incendiary weapons so its perfectly legal for them to use if they feel like it. Because it makes you unhappy it does not make it illegal.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by WestPoint23]

does it matter if it was napalm or not i mean c'mon its war it isnt like they dont use moltov cocktails and other weapons of that nature

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I was about to say that the U.S. has not sighed any treaty banning incendiary weapons so its perfectly legal for them to use if they feel like it. Because it makes you unhappy it does not make it illegal.

careful WP - seems like you're arguing if US signs a treaty & then breaks it IS an illegal act. My point on the Children in G'mo thread

BTW delta - napalm is anti-personnel weapon, cities were fire-bombed using phosphorous incendiaries - two completely different weapons for different targets / tactics

Originally posted by CTID56092

BTW delta - napalm is anti-personnel weapon, cities were fire-bombed using phosphorous incendiaries - two completely different weapons for different targets / tactics

en.wikipedia.org...

"Though researchers had found ways to make jellied gasoline earlier, many of them required rubber as a principal component, which during wartime was a scarce commodity. In 1942, researchers at Harvard University (led by Dr. Louis Fieser) and the U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Service found a rubber-less solution: mixing an aluminum soap powder of naphthalene and palmitate (naphthenic acid and palmitic acid, sodium palmitrate) with gasoline. This produced a substance which was highly flammable, yet slow burning. In World War II, incendiary bombs using napalm as their fuel were used against the German city of Dresden and during the firebombings of Japan.

After World War II, further refinement and development of napalm was undertaken in the United States by the government and its affiliated laboratories. Modern "napalm" contains neither naphthenic nor palmitic acids (despite the name), but often uses a bevy of other chemicals to stabilize the gasoline base. It is manufactured by Dow Chemical Company.

See Bombing of Tokyo in World War II and Bombing of Dresden in World War II for more information on the usage of napalm in the Second World War and chemical warfare for more details on chemical weaponry."

its the same buddy, they just name it differently.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I was about to say that the U.S. has not sighed any treaty banning incendiary weapons so its perfectly legal for them to use if they feel like it. Because it makes you unhappy it does not make it illegal.

Id just like to point out that Japan didn't ratify the Geneva Convention but were expected to abide by its rules in WW2 but did not. Russia didn't ratify the Conventions either and we know where that went at Stalingrad, Bataan etc.
My point is just because a country doesn't ratify or sign a treaty banning such weapons does not mean it is right to use them
Countries, such as Japan, have been prosecuted for crimes in War without technically breaking any international laws.
Something to think about.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Janus]

I'm just saying its not illegal for the U.S. to use it if it is used improperly then its a different story.

Napalm, lovely stuff almost as good as my control rod idea ask the argyll's on hill 282 how they felt about napalm...

THERE IS NOTHING LIKE THE SMELL OF A NAPALM IN THE MORNING !!!

FRY THEM I SAY !!

delta you're right napalm is petro-jelly.

On WW2 incendiaries we're both right:

RAF incendiaries were magnesium / thermite filled, the USAF M69 as dropped on Tokyo was Napalm, the US M50 used in Europe was magnesium.

www.ww2guide.com...

You may have dropped napalm on Dresden but not RAF Bomber Command from what I've read.

This '50% of incendiaries dropped on Dresden were napalm' is a web myth/misquote - 50% of USAF incendiaries perhaps but even then I'd question it - whatever it's still relatively few against total Dresden tonnage.

British incendiaries, certainly, were very different weapons dropped from Heavy Strategic Bombers on cities, very different from napalm - usually a fighter-bomber / CAS weapon.

Incendiaries burn buildings down by igniting the structure, napalm kills troops etc by suffocation and causes casualties by burning. The M69 was unusual as a napalm incendiary - Tokyo was probably the ideal target. Can't see it being better than magnesium against a western city

Makes me Wonder, if the current US goverment Lied to their Own Allies in this War, what else are they prepared to do?

Why would they lie about this? It was common knowledge they used fuel bombs like the daisycutter bomb in Afghanistan against troop positions.

It seems like a good strategy to me, like another poster said: FRY THEM!

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It seems like a good strategy to me, like another poster said: FRY THEM!

I guess a Bomb that maybe Misses its Target and Falls onto the part of the city filled with Civilan population does not matter to you, huh?

Bah - Just FRY'EM!

So, WTF Would they LIE then do the British Ministers?

To "Look Good"?

[edit on 18/6/05 by Souljah]

[edit on 18/6/05 by Souljah]

Ofocurse they don't care, the sad thing is they also don't see the blatent hypocracy. Someone flys a plane into a building, which is bad as people died, so to show these people that they are wrong, they'll invade an innocent country, destroy it, lie to their own people for the reasons for war, possibly lie to their allies during the war(Why not they tried to lie to all of us before, it is just the only the UK seemed to buy it), and still refuse to be held accountable.

Maybe the only thing that would make somepopele take notice is if the US was hit hard? Maybe by China or NK or Russia, but heck even if anyone of those did hit America, America would get revenge by invading Canada or something...

Well, you know their goegraphy isn't so great.

We can use Napalm its not illegal for us to do so, its good way to destroy concentration of troops. Now all your theories about falling on cities, got any proof, evidence other than the crap you come up with?