Napalm in Iraq?

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

The problem is that the US has a long history of friendly fire incidents so you may be frying your allies too. Just like the Hill 282 incident in Korea that DevilWasp mentioned earlier.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by AceOfBase]

Ok I bet every single weapon used on the battle field has been involved in friendly fire incident. Does that mean we should ban them all? If we did that the soldier would be armed with a canteen and some socks.

Napalm is a pretty indiscriminate weapon once it hits the deck, last i checked the delivery system was pretty low tech. They still dropping those things like they did in Vietnam? By unguided canister?
Even so, the friendly fire senario is a valid comment, if these things are not guided then the risk of FF higher than if they were GPS or Lazer guided.
I for one wouldn't like to be under one if it was dropped in error.
This is not a criticism of the US or their past history of FF incidents. FF incidents happen, its just that when the US does one its more likely to be splashed over the media.

And the refuse to accept responsiblity. How many months did the Americans get for bombing those Canadians? It would appear that the disaportionate amount of friendly frie comes from the gun of an American, maybe it is because of a lack of training, maybe it is because they are too stressed maybe it is because they simply don't care, in the end it doesn't matter. In war you should be worried about what your enemies are doing, you shouldn't have to watch out because of some John Wayne wanna be can't hold his load.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ok I bet every single weapon used on the battle field has been involved in friendly fire incident.

Diffrence is, most weapons dont fry you and most weapons can be stopped, this cant once its deployed.

Does that mean we should ban them all? If we did that the soldier would be armed with a canteen and some socks.

The fact I'm trying to make is napalm is "nice" weapon, before you say how "good" it is mabye you should read about the surviviors of that weapon.

It takes time, you need the ingreadiants, but Geurilla Warfare tactics use it.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by The Surrealist]

Originally posted by The Surrealist
It takes time, you need the ingreadiants, but Geurilla Warfare tactics use it.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by The Surrealist]

Geurilla's also use propaganda....much more effective than napalm.

It would appear that the disaportionate amount of friendly frie comes from the gun of an American, maybe it is because of a lack of training, maybe it is because they are too stressed maybe it is because they simply don't care, in the end it doesn't matter.

Maybe its because the scale or operations the U.S. runs and the number of munitions and mission it runs each day. The higher the scale of the operation the more the percentage and number of friendly fire accidents increase. Think before you speak next time.

Umm.... can someone answer me this simple question. People say Napalm has been used in Iraq but when was the last time it was involved in a friendly fire incident? Its sure not Iraq because we would have heard about it.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm.... can someone answer me this simple question. People say Napalm has been used in Iraq but when was the last time it was involved in a friendly fire incident? Its sure not Iraq because we would have heard about it.

It wasnt, type in Hill 282 and read...dont ask just read...

The article linked to below has a listing of some of the US friendly fire incidents and it has some surprising numbers on just how often it happens.

Brothers with arms
The American War Library estimates that friendly fire accounted for 21 per cent of US casualties in the World War II,18 per cent in Korea,39 per cent inVietnam and 49 per cent in the first Gulf War in 1990-91.

With that kind of track record, it's very likely that whatever weapons you use will eventually be used on your own soldiers or your own allies. Knowing that, do you still support the use of Napalm or other weapons of that nature?

As for supporting it, I'd say yes.
Anything that kills the enemy is good, IF you are the one getting shot at..
People who have not seen combat, do not understand the philosophy of it.
I absolutely hate fire, and this has always sent chills down me, but when you are in a situation thats tight, and you have the means to use it, then the personal opinions go out the window in a hurry.
Civilians get killed in situations and friendly fire happens, and its hard to deal with, (usually if I were to speak on this topic in private it would include cursing), but war is not pretty, in fact it's down right -plain and simple from the devil himself. Ask anyone who has had their lunch interrupted by 7.62 rounds, and they will tell you that if they could have launched napalm from their crotch they would have done it.
Friendly fire and civilian casualties are part of wars nature, and not restricted to napalm, or any other weapon.

Umm.... can someone answer me this simple question. People say Napalm has been used in Iraq but when was the last time it was involved in a friendly fire incident? Its sure not Iraq because we would have heard about it.

Westpoint is right, as much as any Soldier hates these weapons there have been no verified reports of Napalm being used in the Iraq theatre of operations.
And if there had been any friendly fire incidents we would have heard of it.
I think the point being made is that due to the nature of the weapon if any FF incident did happen then the effects would be horrific.
Most Soldiers i know, and i speak for myself as well, hate the stuff. War is a bloody and dangerous enough business as it is without causing more suffering than is necessary to get the job done. We have enough conventional weapons that cause horrible wounds to the enemy and cause the same psychological effect as Napalm and its successors with out having to resort to using such a weapon.

[edit on 20-6-2005 by Janus]

JANUS,

The overall difference is that many peole see that we have also moved past the point for war itself.

Ideally, I think the goal would be that no fighting would be needed because you would own/have everything, or that people will just "know their place" - but very clearly that won't work, neve3r has worked and presumably will never work.

There is an old saying that the definition of stupidity is doing the exact same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. How many times has humanity gone down this road? How many have changed anything?

Maybe it is time for us to grow up? Just one persons point of view.

Originally posted by skippytjc
Napalm has not been used in Iraq. That’s simple propaganda.

Yes it was used in Fullajah, don't make me embarass you by quoting US officers who have already admitted the use of "napalm like ordinance." Jesus people, this has already been hashed. Propoganda? You mean like this?

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. Randolph Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war.

Originally posted by twitchy
No seekerof, if you will notice the comment just above the image,

The sanctity of the western world...

In other words, the US, the largest producer of Napalm, is not above using it. Imagery to illustrate my comment, surely you understand such concepts. But since you such a stickler for details...
www.signonsandiego.com...
Would you like more? Perhaps you can explain why Rumsfeld was meeting with congress to get approval for the use of chemical weapons in Iraq prior to the invasion? Bet you didn't see that on Fox news.

Edit: More?
www.commondreams.org...
www.mediachannel.org...


[edit on 6-3-2005 by twitchy]

Originally posted by AceOfBase
With that kind of track record, it's very likely that whatever weapons you use will eventually be used on your own soldiers or your own allies.

I wouldn't be surprised of napalm use in Iraq when the pentagon has admitted using sarin, VX , & other toxic agents on US military personnel (5,500) in the 60's & 70's, even on American soil. Not a good track record.

The Pentagon has published previously secret information revealing that it carried out more extensive tests of chemical and biological warfare agents than had previously been thought. The tests took place in the 1960s and early 70s.

The Pentagon has previously revealed information on tests of chemical and biological warfare agents aboard US Navy ships at sea.

Now, for the first time, it has given details of similar tests on American soil - in Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland and Utah - as well as in Britain and Canada.

In some of these tests actual toxic agents, including sarin and VX, were released but more than half used simulated agents.

The aim of the tests, the Pentagon insists, was to evaluate equipment, procedures and military tactics and not to check the effects on people.

Personnel wore protective suits.

news.bbc.co.uk...

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.

"Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers."

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.'"

From what was written, the napalm was used ONLY against Iraqi troops and positions. There was no napalm dropped into a city (except on the bridge, which has wide open areas where they dropped) or used on civilians at any time. If we're fighting a war, then we're going to use every weapon necessary that's in our arsenal. We've taken great care to limit the casualties on both sides, and to keep from hitting civilian targets, but if the choice is to use napalm on an enemy position and take it out, or lose troops, then I'll use the napalm. I would like to point out however, that the treaty signed ONLY restricts the use of napalm on CIVILIANS.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm.