Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Pokey78; SAMWolf
Whatever they want to call it, we used it and good for us.

Does the reporter think we should feel sorry for the enemy?

Like the Marine said, "We told them to surrender".
3 posted on 08/09/2003 1:17:19 PM PDT by snippy_about_it (Pray for our Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: snippy_about_it
How is napalm worse than a bomb full of ordinary explosive? I wasn't aware there was a controversy over its use.
5 posted on 08/09/2003 1:23:32 PM PDT by Threepwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: snippy_about_it
Makes sense to me to use this on positions located on bridge approaches. You wouldn't want to use HE and accidently damage a bridge you want to take intact.

There is no treaty prohibiting this weapon that the U.S. is a party to. War is hell and there are few pleasant ways of dying in combat.

These hypocrites want to pin an unjust "war crimes" label on the U.S. while ignoring Iraq's refusal to adhere to the Geneva Convention.

6 posted on 08/09/2003 1:23:57 PM PDT by colorado tanker (Iron Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: snippy_about_it; Pokey78
I'm Shocked!! I'm outraged! This is a disgrace!!

Why are we using naplam when FAE's are so much better?

Fry 'em!

13 posted on 08/09/2003 1:36:21 PM PDT by SAMWolf (Behind every argument is someone's ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson