• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fallujah Napalmed: US Uses Banned Chemical Weapon in Iraq

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's déjà vu all over again...

From the UK Sunday Mirror

US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah.

News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.

And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.

Outraged critics have also demanded that Mr Blair threatens to withdraw British troops from Iraq unless the US abandons one of the world's most reviled weapons. Halifax Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "I am calling on Mr Blair to make an emergency statement to the Commons to explain why this is happening. It begs the question: 'Did we know about this hideous weapon's use in Iraq?'"

Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of "melted" corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries.

Last August the US was forced to admit using the gas in Iraq.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use of napalm against civilians - after pictures of a naked girl victim fleeing in Vietnam shocked the world.

America, which didn't ratify the treaty, is the only country in the world still using the weapon.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
How did I miss this earlier?

A 1980 UN convention banned the use of napalm against civilians - after pictures of a naked girl victim fleeing in Vietnam shocked the world.
Jesus, the girl that was fleeing in the Vietnam pic was running for her life from the North - not the US. America was already gone when that picture was taken! Look at the picture, thats not even a US airplane.

Anyway, this is the type crap that Kerry helped to stir up with his congressional hearing. Now, no matter the facts - it is believed that little girl was running from the US and we became the bad guys.

Also, what on earth would they need napalm in Iraq for? Like there are any flippin trees.
 
Last edited:

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Just so it doens't seem like I am smoking crack...

http://www.raskys.com/vietnam/myth.html

The photo is an accurate depiction of about 1/500th of a second of the immediate aftermath of an all-Vietnamese accident in an all-Vietnamese fight in June of 1972, and it was originally reported that way.
Newly manufactured details have changed the perception and altered the reported history of that tragedy.
The Canadian documentary crew and the heads of foundations that collect money for themselves created and continue a gross misrepresentation that quickly evolved into a "new memory" and new history of the event.
It is a fraud advanced for profit and continues to be published as late as December of 1998

Edit: sorry, I get all googly when I see :spin:'s to the extream like this.
 
Last edited:

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
How did I miss this earlier?

Jesus, the girl that was fleeing in the Vietnam pic was running for her life from the North - not the US. America was already gone when that picture was taken! Look at the picture, thats not even a US airplane.

Anyway, this is the type crap that Kerry helped to stir up with his congressional hearing. Now, no matter the facts - it is believed that little girl was running from the US and we became the bad guys.

Also, what on earth would they need napalm in Iraq for? Like there are any flippin trees.
This is a very famous photo and well documented event. Timberlake, who has since passed, seemed to think right or wrong that the North VC dropped the naplam and it was their plane. US military records did not back him up which is why the main stream press never ran with this story. 60 Minutes ran a piece on Timberlake and his claims in the mid 90's and pointed all this out. Other Vets who publicly stated Timberlake was full of it were attacked by Timberlake. Here's a web site concerning this:

http://www.patriotnews.com/artman/publish/article_111.shtml
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First, the piece never states that the girl was nepalmed by Americans. The girl was indeed nepalmed, though, and the picture was the catalyst for banning the use of nepalm. Second, we did use nepalm. And the known-carcinogen Agent Orange. We also dropped more conventional bombs on Viet Nam than all the bombs dropped in all of WWII. (Remember "bombing it back into the stone age"? That's exactly what we did.) And we did this to a poor country that never attacked us and wasn't a threat. (Sound familiar?) This alone disqualifies us from being the "good guys."

As for the use of nepalm in Iraq:

From the Asia Times:

"In August last year, the United States admitted dropping the internationally-banned incendiary weapon of napalm on Iraq, despite earlier denials by the Pentagon that the "horrible" weapon had not been used in the three-week invasion of Iraq.

The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.
Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their use would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted they were "remarkably similar" to napalm but said they caused less environmental damage.

But John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: *"You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it." Marines returning from Iraq chose to call the firebombs "napalm".

Mr Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the weapons was outrageous. He said: "It's Orwellian. They do not want the public to know. It's a lie."

In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in the war."

There's your spin, Vauge
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
As near as I can verify what you've posted is accurate. Well except the "America is a continent" part. My research shows America is a nation and North America is in fact a continent.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pacridge said:
My research shows America is a nation and North America is in fact a continent.
While it's technically true that the continent of America is split into north and south, the term "American" has been pompously appropriated by citizens of the U.S. to refer only to them. The problem is that the United States of America doesn't really have a name, like Canada or Mexico. But Canadians are American. So are Mexicans and Brazilians and Guatamalens. We are all Americans. Thus my signature, "America is a continent." Just a reminder.

P.S. Latin Americans refer to us as Estdounidences; basically, "United States-ers," because to call us Americanos is absurd to them. I propose we come up with a name for the U.S. How about Arrogantistan or Ignorantia? :D
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Your right, but the assumption is that they are refering to the US. The author did not clarify. This was a big mayhem years ago, and I was hoping it to be over.

Ok, you got me - that is an excellent rebutal about "napalm". Was a good read as well.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
argexpat said:
While it's technically true that the continent of America is split into north and south, the term "American" has been pompously appropriated by citizens of the U.S. to refer only to them. The problem is that the United States of America doesn't really have a name, like Canada or Mexico. But Canadians are American. So are Mexicans and Brazilians and Guatamalens. We are all Americans. Thus my signature, "America is a continent." Just a reminder.

P.S. Latin Americans refer to us as Estdounidences; basically, "United States-ers," because to call us Americanos is absurd to them. I propose we come up with a name for the U.S. How about Arrogantistan or Ignorantia? :D
Yeah, my wife doesn't think I'm funny either.
 

IronTongue

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
36
Reaction score
1
First, a UK paper saying that there a "secret" usage of Napalm? Come on, the UK media HATES Bush with a passion.

Second, even if we did use it, we are using it against people that cut off hands, feet, and heads. A little machine gun fire and propaganda won't convince them to give up.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
The UN banned it the US didn't sign the agreement. Sounds to me like we have every right to use napalm or the new and improved Mark 77 firebombs. This is war and we should use all available weapons in are arsenal. It is amazing in WW2 we nuked hiroshima and nagasaki not because the were military targets but because it would make an impression. We carpet bombed German citys killing all in the path. We need to fight wars as a grandfathers did. Kicking maximum ass and cleaning up later. The PC crap isn't going to work in war. It never has and never will.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's some tough talk, CSA TX. How about putting your money where your mouth is and kicking some maximum ass with the grunts in Iraq? They're dying to have you.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
CSA_TX said:
The UN banned it the US didn't sign the agreement. Sounds to me like we have every right to use napalm or the new and improved Mark 77 firebombs. This is war and we should use all available weapons in are arsenal. It is amazing in WW2 we nuked hiroshima and nagasaki not because the were military targets but because it would make an impression. We carpet bombed German citys killing all in the path. We need to fight wars as a grandfathers did. Kicking maximum ass and cleaning up later. The PC crap isn't going to work in war. It never has and never will.
In some sense I agree with you. All's fair in love and war so to speak. However when it comes to this situation in the Middle East I think issues are far more complex than they were in WWII. Based on what you're saying we might as well nuke'em and build a parking lot out of the whole damn region. Which was Truman's basic approach in Japan. However in 1945 we were looking at launching a full scale invasion against a military and civilian population completely unwilling to surrender, even in the face of obvious defeat. Turning two of their cities into parking lots probably saved as many of their lives as ours. This isn't the case in Iraq. Most Iraqis are completely unhappy about us being there and want us to leave. But they are not attacking us. Plus in 45 we had the majority of world opinion on our side. Now I know you guys on the right like to take this "I don't give a crap what the rest of the world thinks" attitude. And I guess I'd be willing to sign off on that too if it didn't lead to people hating us and then flying aircraft into our buildings. So the parallels between WWII and now don't really play out well in this situation.

But I agree with the main concept of your arguement. You can't go to war in a nice way (least I think that's what you're saying.) Case in point. Recently we had a young man shoot and kill an Iraqi (maybe, might have been a Jordanian?) in a Mosque in Falluja. The man eventually was playing dead and our guy shot him. Big out cry. Shot an unarmed man. He wasn't a threat. Bah Bah Bah. In fact if I'm not mistaken I believe that soilder is up on charges for that incident. IMO, what the hell was he suppose to do? He's a soilder. Soilders shoot people. This guy was faking being dead so he could escape and come back and fight another day. Fight and kill our guys. Does anyone really think if the tables were turned this guy wouldn't have killed our guy? This is war. This is Falluja. This isn't downtown Boise. I heard some reporter say "you watch that tape and it's clear the [Marine] had the chance to capture the man and he just shot him." Well that's great. And this reporter been in combat how many times? And how does this reporter have any idea what it was like in that situation at that time? The truth is war is hell and people die and people kill in war. The American people at times don't seem to be able to understand this truth. I think Col. Nathan R. Jessep might have been on to something when he said "you want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
IronTongue said:
First, a UK paper saying that there a "secret" usage of Napalm? Come on, the UK media HATES Bush with a passion.

Second, even if we did use it, we are using it against people that cut off hands, feet, and heads. A little machine gun fire and propaganda won't convince them to give up.
This is classic fallacious argumentation. Impugning the source doesn’t prove something false. So only sources who support Bush can be trusted? That’s absurd. If you’ve got evidence to the contrary, you should present it. Otherwise, you need to concede the point.

Which you seem to do in the your second paragraph. The problem with firebombing, as we saw in Germany and Japan, is that firebombs don’t distinguish between combatant and civilian. Maybe that’s the point, to win the war by brutalizing the civilians (a ghastly tactic CSA TX thinks is totally awesome, dude!) And, by the way, this is the text book definition of terrorism. Some of us have apparently deluded ourselves into believing we’re the liberators, but to Iraqis we’re invaders (and they know an invader when they see one, having fended them off for millennia.) And as we saw in Viet Nam, people defending their homeland will fight to the last man, woman and child. And like Viet Nam, we’ll win every battle and lose the war.
 

IronTongue

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
36
Reaction score
1
We can't lose the war no matter what. If we lose, the insurgents take over Iraq, and then the citizens of Iraq would be in a REAL problem.

Besides, in Vietnam we were fighting another nation; in Iraq, we're fighting an ideology. Most civilized human beings believe that terrorists are the bad guys. We don't have to deal with a country, or any allies that coutry has.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
argexpat said:
And like Viet Nam, we’ll win every battle and lose the war.
This is a very real possibility. Which is why I believe it is so important to work on world opinion and that of the Iraqi people. Napalming isn't going to help.

Then of course there is the issue that they are a lot of wealthly people getting more wealthly the longer this war goes on. So maybe winning to them isn't really the objective.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
IronTongue said:
Besides, in Vietnam we were fighting another nation; in Iraq, we're fighting an ideology. Most civilized human beings believe that terrorists are the bad guys. We don't have to deal with a country, or any allies that coutry has.
In Vietnam we were fighting the ideology of communism just as much as we were fighting the North Veitnam nation. The whole idea was to stop the spread of communism.

And one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If someone "occupied" this nation many of us would instantly become "terrorists." Probably myself included.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Perhaps I need to clarify my position. I don't think we need to bow are rights to the UN or to an agreement that we did not sign. In Falluja as the news reported most civilians had left the city. In my opinion they had plenty of warning (to much warning that we were coming). I guess my biggest complaint is that the media and other orginizations are coming down on our troops who are doing there job. The marine on the video tape is a perfect example. Who is anyone to judge this man. We are not there and we do not know the whole story.However the Media was talking about for 5 days straight. In my opinion that kind of political correctness (if thats the right word) will defeat the US everytime. The Vietnam war was fought by politicians and if we continue down the same path we will unfortinatly have the same results.

argexpat
Maybe that’s the point, to win the war by brutalizing the civilians (a ghastly tactic CSA TX thinks is totally awesome, dude!) And, by the way, this is the text book definition of terrorism
Yes it is awsome dude to see american firepower taking out barbarions that like to cut of civilians heads on TV.

I do beleive the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. Perhaps I am naive in this however it makes since to me that if we fight them in there backyard hopefully we will not fight them in ours. And if we fight the war PC style we will never win.
 

Mr.America

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2004
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
Maryland
CSA_TX said:
The UN banned it the US didn't sign the agreement. Sounds to me like we have every right to use napalm or the new and improved Mark 77 firebombs. This is war and we should use all available weapons in are arsenal. It is amazing in WW2 we nuked hiroshima and nagasaki not because the were military targets but because it would make an impression. We carpet bombed German citys killing all in the path. We need to fight wars as a grandfathers did. Kicking maximum ass and cleaning up later. The PC crap isn't going to work in war. It never has and never will.

I would agree with you, except we can just go and start dropping A bombs on Iraq. This would make the UN and alot of liberal European nations have a hissy-fit. As a result we would most likely cause a third World War, but it isn't like it is inevitable anyway. Odds are that we will get in a war with europe within the next 30 to 60 years. :confused:
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
CSA, your right brother.
But, the A-bomb was mearly to show the we were the shiz and got us into that position.

I could really careless what we use against the enemy. After all, they are the frikin enemy. It would be stupid to use another A-bomb though.

As far as napalm, so the US is using it... so what?

They knew we were coming! Leaflets for months were dropped. TV and radio showered with our coming.
The interium Iraq government said take them out - we did.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
I never said we should nuke them. (I may think it however I never said it).

All I am saying is that if the UN or any other orginization wants to wank over how we wage war than they should be ignored. We never signed on to the treaty banning napalm. Had Sadam tried to gas our troops as they were headed to Bagdad then we should have nuked the place however he had already sent the chem weapons to syria at that point. So no reason to nuke.

To argexpat: you are right dude the more I think about the more I get some serious wood of all the killing being done by our sons and daughters of the US Armed Forces in the name of liberty. Totally awsome kickin some serious terrorist ass.:)
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
CSA_TX said:
I do beleive the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. Perhaps I am naive in this however it makes since to me that if we fight them in there backyard hopefully we will not fight them in ours. And if we fight the war PC style we will never win.
Even if Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9-11, which it didn't. And even if invading them casued there to be more terrorist in Iraq then there were before, which it did. Then now it most certainly is part of the war on terror. It wouldn't have needed to be this way, but you can't unring a bell now can you? Which is why so many countries and so people advise against this whole mess. We could have stayed in Afghanistan and either finished or be finishing that job. But it's too late for all that thinking now. Now we're there. Now we got to do this and doing it is ugly work. Like it or not. And pulling out isn't an option either becasue the power vaccuum that would create would cause an even bigger mess then the one we've already created. We have to stay, finnish the job and support our troops.
 

Mr.America

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2004
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
Maryland
CSA_TX said:
I never said we should nuke them. (I may think it however I never said it).

All I am saying is that if the UN or any other orginization wants to wank over how we wage war than they should be ignored. We never signed on to the treaty banning napalm. Had Sadam tried to gas our troops as they were headed to Bagdad then we should have nuked the place however he had already sent the chem weapons to syria at that point. So no reason to nuke.

To argexpat: you are right dude the more I think about the more I get some serious wood of all the killing being done by our sons and daughters of the US Armed Forces in the name of liberty. Totally awsome kickin some serious terrorist ass.:)
I agree with you 100%. BTW If I was the president, I would destroy the UN and invade europe and restructure their government. I only wish this was possible. :D
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Mr.America said:
I agree with you 100%. BTW If I was the president, I would destroy the UN and invade europe and restructure their government. I only wish this was possible. :D
Huh, somebody I want to be President less then Bush. Didn't know that was possible.
 
Top Bottom