US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

The Independent on Sunday (U.K.) ^ | 08/10/03 | Andrew Buncombe

[Diogenesis]

Buncombe makes it seem like a bad thing.

[Yasotay]

I like the M202 "Flash" myself .... a grunt's FPF of fire...

I also always liked the cadence:

Napalm sticks to all the children.... All the children of the world.... Whether they're black ... yellow or white.... Napalm really outta sight cause ... Napalm sticks to all the children of the world....

[risk]

For him, the real problem is the existence of America itself. Ultimately, Musil's kind can only be satisfied by a broken America full of Mao-suited peasants, toiling on collectivized farms and cringing in fear of a jackbooted UN occupation force.

I'm not sure it's so black and white. There is another, even more sinister effect at play. These apologists for American might actually believe that the UN and even American power are more than adequate for solving all of the world's problems. What do I mean? With the blood and sacrifice of our armed forces, we have gained power and influence in the world, for the good of mankind. But these elitists sit in their ivory towers squandering the advantages that we have now, falsely believing that the power is endless. And they think the UN should usurp even American sovereignty in order to benefit mankind.

In their minds they ask, "Why would we ever need to use these weapons if America is the greatest country in the world?" That is how they think. They actually believe that we have no serious enemies. They believe that our advantages are impregnable. They believe that we are done fighting and now we should go around taking care of the world like so many caretakers.

If they had a chance to get to know real soldiers who have lost their buddies on these fields of honor, they would not take our fleeting victories for granted. They would sieze every bulwark, every opportunity to reinforce the strengths that we have won, and they would compromise at nothing to hold onto the strategic and tactical advantages that we have.

But instead, they look for ways to "balance" our power with that of others -- irrespective of the ideologies and ambitions of those other powers, and apologize for the victories we've been blessed enough to gain only at the highest of prices.

When you believe our nation could never be threatened, when you believe our force is immoral, and when you believe the future is assured, it's no surprise that you might come to the conclusion that napalm or nuclear weapons are wrong. I believe that these same arguments are being used against our second amendment rights. The elite center and near left seriously believe that American superiority is endless, and western civilization will always be free.

For those of us with parents and grandparents who fought "western" Germany, how can we ever forget?

[OldFriend]

They'd rather we dropped marshmallows?

[HiTech RedNeck]

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.

NEAT

[Zeroisanumber]

Why the hell is the DoD bothering to mislead anyone? There's nothing wrong with using napalm or napalm-like bombs so why try to dance around it?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Made with kerosene... I guess it's redneck napalm.

[SAMWolf]

BTTT. See post 43 Snippy

[nmh]

THe Pentagon had no reason to deny it since "The US, which did not sign the treaty, ...". This is what makes me distrust govenment. They deny something and later on the truth slips out.

[DAPFE8900]

What is with this BS! "The us used it both against CIVILIANS and military targets in Vietnam". THey make it sound like we indescrimently targeted civilians with napalm in NAM. THAT IS SUCH A FREAKING LIE! Hey BRIT libs, if you werent there shut your pie holes!!!

[Doe Eyes]

How is napalm worse than a bomb full of ordinary explosive?

Is mustard gas worse than napalm?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

They say this like it's a bad thing.

[risk]

Is mustard gas worse than napalm?

It depends on who's on the receiving end. Gas is quite unpredictable. It often floats back to harm the delivering side. And the ebb and flow of the battle can bring the delivering side into its effects, as well.

Napalm and its close cousin the flame thrower are far more predictable.

[LibKill]

This is a surprise. Due to some TV news some years ago, I thought that napalm was out of the inventory of weapons.

Good to see it back.

[King Prout]

allrightythen... so no matter what it is made out of, no matter what it is officially called, no matter that the new formulation is in accord with the directives of some silly agreement, just becuae the grunts persist in calling any form of thickened pyro/incendiary weapon napalm" it is still "napalm"???

[colorado tanker]

Thanks, Sam, for the reminder that the 9-11 terrorists intended jets fully loaded with fuel to act like an incendiary bomb.

[King Prout]

NAPALM is out.
Napalm used gasoline.
The new stuff uses kerosine.
Not the same stuff, not really napalm.
rom what I hear, it is... even... BETTER :)

[LibKill]

Even better?

Please tell me more.

[snippy_about_it]

Well said. Never Forget.

[HiTech RedNeck]

THey make it sound like we indescrimently targeted civilians with napalm in NAM. THAT IS SUCH A FREAKING LIE!

Part of the situation, I understand, was that the Viet Cong used civilians as human shields, many against their will. And these aggregate movements were sometimes napalmed. I wonder if similar situations were encountered in Iraq.