[ArcLight]

The worst part is the Pentagon's Orwellian effort to avoid calling the weapons by their right names. At the very least, this stuff sounds like Napalm Lite.

[pfflier]

The worst part is the Pentagon's Orwellian effort to avoid calling the weapons by their right names.

What is so "Orwellian" about that? Napalm, technically, is comprised of naptha and palm oil. It hasn't been used since the Korean war. Other concoctions burn better and are more stable and efficient. Nuclear weapons burn, fuel air bombs burn. Conventional munitions develop their effects through large exothermic reactions.

Is the Pentagon "Orwellian" for not pointing that out? Or is the press baiting the whimpy handwringers craving for another Vietnam?

[XJarhead]

The worst part is the Pentagon's Orwellian effort to avoid calling the weapons by their right names. At the very least, this stuff sounds like Napalm Lite

How is it "Orwellian" to say that something isn't "napalm" when it [i]isn't[/i] napalm? "Napalm" is a rather specifically defined substance with specific qualities. Here's a link:

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic919.htm

The stuff used in Iraq had some similarities to napalm, but some differences. It wasn't napalm, any more than a VT fuse is the same as a time fuze. The tactical usage may be similar, but the actual items are not the same. In fact, I could honestly see the military calling it napalm, and then have someone come out and accuse them of misidentifying the stuff that was actually used.