Napalm used in Iraq by USA.

From what I've heard, napalm was made illegal in 1980. The US last used it in combat in 1993, and destroyed their last stockpiles in 2001.

I don't really think it's very likely that napalm will have been used here.

However, the points made about children dying from our bombing is really very serious. We've already lost the battle for Arab hearts and minds, that's going to mean that the US will have to get out of Iraq after the war quicker than they otherwise would have. But if we lose the battle for Iraqi hearts and minds... well then we could be in a world of pain.

That's why civilian casualties have to be avoided, and for that to be possible the civilians have to be on our side. If they're not, then we're in a great deal of trouble in terms of our exit strategy.

It's very likely that a US satellite state with no regional backing and no domestic backing will simply collapse into civil war as soon as the US withdraw.

Don't forget Iraq is killing it's own people, trying to make US and the Brits look bad. Too much media can rot the brain!!!!!!!

The source I quoted was from an eyewitness working for CNN.

How would he know?
Well he was told for one. It's not the sort of thing somebody would accidentally say. I mean the soldier said Napalm but he really meant What??

Secondly he eyewitnesses it. Now I'm not a military expert but even I could recognize a napalm attack when I saw one. It is fairly distinctive. He also describes the aftermath

It is now estimated the hill was hit so badly by missiles, artillery and by the Air Force, that they shaved a couple of feet off it. And anything that was up there that was left after all the explosions was then hit with napalm. And that pretty much put an end to any Iraqi operations up on that hill.

Sounds very much like a layman�s version of the other quotation. John Bull 1 beginning with the fact that this matter is not being addressed in the media today. And not regarded as an issue in respect to all governments concerned. My impression is your fishing line has caught a tire, as much as you may want to believe it
is a valid issue it is not.

You did not see, though, major buildings that had been damaged. You did not see-damaged homes or any sign of collateral damage. That may have happened, but there was not an overwhelming indication of that, which is remarkable given the light show we saw from the vantage point we had from the border.

What he saw was a light show meaning that he was at a distance. That no collateral damage was evident is an indication that Napalm was not used.

I doubt very much the person in question, has any idea what he is talking about.

Originally posted by Estragon
I'm sure, Thomas, that many posters share your wish to see a fitting retribution descend upon "Hussein and his henchmen".
However, others might point out, in this context, the possibility of inflicting upon civilians precisely what you accuse Saddam of having inflicted on his own people.
It is this difficulty of avoiding indisciminate slaughter that lies at the heart of most opposition to napalm. The argument about unnecessary suffering seems a little woolly: I imagine a bayonet can cause as much "unnecessary" suffering as napalm or DU or any of the other "high-tech" advances in butchery.
Perhaps there is no high moral ground in war and we must resign ourselves to ends that justify all and any means.

True, Estragon, except that napalm, like most everything, can be dropped on the military without striking the civilian population, just as a bayonet can be thrust into the stomach of a Republican Guard member without hacking down the cutting down a baby.

In the long run, though, no war can be conducted without killing some civilians. It never has happened in the past, there's no reason to hold ourselves to an impossible goal now. It doesn't have to be another Dresden, though.

MMmmmmmmm Selective Napalm Bombing.

I never heard nor saw any indication that it was outlawed or banned. I was a member of the US Marines in 1980 (79-83) and we practiced with nape all the time. It's a staple for use as a defoliation agent as well as good way to smoke/burn out any hard targets.

This look out was a purely military "hard" target, no civilians were nor should they have been in or around it. If Sodamn Insane herds his own people into these "hard targets" as a way to stop us from hitting them hard, he is mistaken. He will be charged with those deaths, not the US.

After all of the surrender attacks by the Iraqi terror squads and military people dressed as civilians I neither trust nor believe any more of the lies Al Jazeer TV or Iraqi TV attempt to say that we hit civilians rather than military targets. If Sodamn is willing to place his civilians into harms way its just one more charge to add to his war crimes tribunal.

I do feel for the Iraqi people but they can choose to leave Bagdad anyway they can to protect themselves and their families. If fear of Sodamn has them unable or unwilling to protect themselves, how are we to do so for them? This is WAR, it ain't no video game.

I would choose to maybe die protecting your family, not to surely die as a forced martyr for some sicko's idea of sustaining his rein at any cost!!

Still no mention of your allegations John Bull 1, with exception of the fact that members of the press. Are loosing there credentials and or right to operate in the
field of operations (Iraq).

Napalm is indescriminant, uncontrollable as well as obsolete.