US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

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

[kayak]

If the Pentagon had said it used napalm and later it came out that this isn't technically napalm but something that acts in the same way, they would have been accused of lying.

The way the libs twist things around and parse words, they will accuse anyone of lying any time they open their mouth. Kinda ironic since they are the ones who lie so glibly.

[avg_freeper]

We're sending our enemies flaming jello shots? Count me in!

[HiTech RedNeck]

If the Pentagon had said it used napalm and later it came out that this isn't technically napalm but something that acts in the same way, they would have been accused of lying.

I doubt that. Everyone there called this kerosene based stuff "napalm." As for damage to the environment... how can you damage sand?

[DAPFE8900]

Thanks i just get heated when people say things that are not true...!

[Gringo1]

Hey, I like my Islamics "extra crispy" too.

[hayfried]

When you believe our nation could never be threatened...when you believe the future is assured

The naive complacency that slays civilizations...

[COBOL2Java]

I did a lookup on the so-called Physicians for Social Responsibility and guess what they entusiastically support?

Environment

Climate Change - Global warming, caused by human activity, is a grave fact, potentially threatening everyone, everywhere. PSR understands that the most effect means to achieve global climate stability is to act on an international level. PSR supports the Kyoto global warming treaty, and PSR sent delegations to the Kyoto protocol conference in 1997 and the Johannesburg sustainable development meeting in 2002.

[Paul Ross]

Hey, we wanted those bridges left intact!

[El Gato]

We still have any of these in the inventory?

AFIAK, you can own a version if you'd like. They aren't a firearm, and they aren't an explosive either. Completely out the BATFE's jurisdiction. Unless you use one for arson, and then they may get in on the investigation. Lots of ranchers have lessor versions of them that they use to burn the spines off of certain types of cacti so the cows (or other livestock) can eat them.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Blame the heat generated by the napalm.

[sargunner]

Sam,

Direct hit! Great comparison.

[El Gato]

On the other hand, Chemical agents would have emptied this bridge even faster

No they wouldn't. They take time to take full effect. Then your own troops can't move in right away without cumbersom protective gear.

[demkicker]

I'm sure they're for a hug fest military and cotten ball bombs too. Maybe we'll get lucky and one of them will run for Prez... Sheesh!

[nmh]

The oppostion will jump on anything, even the absurd to appear self righteous. They will NEVER admit they were wrong. They will continue to nit pick anything that comes their way. I don't object to napalm (sp). We went in there for a purpose and this is one of the many tools to help spare life and accomplish that. Nothing wrong with that.

[SAMWolf]

Thanks, Sometimes I really hate the hanking wringing the Press does for our enemies while they make every excuse for their actions.

[SAMWolf]

AWW. We would have just singed it a bit. ;-)

[Northern Yankee]

Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiares are horrible, horrible weapon...

Does he realize how many more U.S. casualties we would have had in Vietnam, and Iraq without them?

War, like napalm, is never pleasant, but sometimes necessary.

[colorado tanker]

I don't remember a sustained assault on the administration and the military as bad as the post-Iraq war media since the Vietnam era. But I don't think most people are buying the bravo sierra. It didn't work back during Vietnam, either. All the mediots and liberals succeeded in doing was radicalize the Democratic Party and hand Nixon a landslide in 1972.

[COBOL2Java]

Reminds me of a good quote from Sean Hannity: "The definition of peace is not the absence of conflict. Peace is defined by the ability to defend yourself. The Liberals will never get this, and that's why they'll continue to be marginalized."

[piasa]

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.

So? It's cheap and effective and if we don't use it, we would have to follow enormously expensive EPA protocols to get rid of it.

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

This statement isn't relevent since the target was military.

Not to mention Iraq's descision to use forces dressed as civilians and hidden among civilians and civilian structures negated international protections on civilians. Even had we opted to use the stuff where civilians were present, because of he Iraqi descision we would be justified.