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

Skip to comments.

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq
The Independent on Sunday (U.K.) ^ | 08/10/03 | Andrew Buncombe

Posted on 08/09/2003 1:08:58 PM PDT by Pokey78

Edited on 11/10/2004 4:21:39 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.


(Excerpt) Read more at news.independent.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: aftermathanalysis; cool; deadiraqisoldiers; iraq; iraqifreedom; napalm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last
To: nmh
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.

61 posted on 08/09/2003 3:11:42 PM PDT by kayak (God bless President Bush, our military, and our nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: PoorMuttly
We're sending our enemies flaming jello shots? Count me in!
62 posted on 08/09/2003 3:15:14 PM PDT by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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

63 posted on 08/09/2003 3:16:15 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Thanks i just get heated when people say things that are not true...!
64 posted on 08/09/2003 3:22:50 PM PDT by DAPFE8900 (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Hey, I like my Islamics "extra crispy" too.

65 posted on 08/09/2003 3:28:12 PM PDT by Gringo1 (Handsome...and now with springtime fresh lemon scent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

The naive complacency that slays civilizations...

66 posted on 08/09/2003 3:47:27 PM PDT by hayfried
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kayak
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.


67 posted on 08/09/2003 3:56:48 PM PDT by COBOL2Java
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf
Hey, we wanted those bridges left intact!
68 posted on 08/09/2003 3:59:10 PM PDT by Paul Ross (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!-A. Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
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.

69 posted on 08/09/2003 4:00:49 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
Blame the heat generated by the napalm.
70 posted on 08/09/2003 4:00:57 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf
Sam,

Direct hit! Great comparison.
71 posted on 08/09/2003 4:02:10 PM PDT by sargunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Threepwood
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.

72 posted on 08/09/2003 4:02:44 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
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!
73 posted on 08/09/2003 4:03:00 PM PDT by demkicker ((I wanna kick some commie butt))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: kayak
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.
74 posted on 08/09/2003 4:03:14 PM PDT by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: sargunner; colorado tanker
Thanks, Sometimes I really hate the hanking wringing the Press does for our enemies while they make every excuse for their actions.
75 posted on 08/09/2003 4:09:40 PM PDT by SAMWolf (Behind every argument is someone's ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
AWW. We would have just singed it a bit. ;-)
76 posted on 08/09/2003 4:11:34 PM PDT by SAMWolf (Behind every argument is someone's ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: kayak
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.

77 posted on 08/09/2003 4:13:48 PM PDT by Northern Yankee (Freedom.... needs a soldier !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf
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.
78 posted on 08/09/2003 4:14:24 PM PDT by colorado tanker (Iron Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
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."
79 posted on 08/09/2003 4:18:34 PM PDT by COBOL2Java
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
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.

80 posted on 08/09/2003 4:27:12 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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