Washington sent a very clear weapon to Iraqi commanders when it went to war - "Use chemical weapons and you *will* be tried for war crimes!"

And then what does the US military do?

Pilots confirm US dropped napalm in Baghdad advance
WASHINGTON - 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 they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.

A 1980 United Nations convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war.

The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River, south of Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

A reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald who witnessed another napalm attack on March 21 on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill, close to the Kuwaiti border, wrote the following day: "Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. 'I pity anyone who is in there, a Marine sergeant said. We told them to surrender."'

At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. "We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001," it said.

The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war.

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.

But it's okay for the US to use it because...well...they're the US! I think when Washington suggested that usage of chemical weapons would result in war crimes they were refering to everyone else. Come now, we should all be aware that they are above the law.

This might strain the already tense relations between the US and the Iraqi population even more.

But it's not napalm, it's Mark 77. There's a Huuuuuge difference. :rolleyes: (sarcasm)

Edit: I can't help but to think about the outrage if it was the Iraqis using napalm on the American troops and not the other way around.

[ 08-11-2003, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

Not good. :( But is dying "conventionally" through a "normal" bomb any better? Isn't death in war death in war? Why are we suprised by all this? What are we expecting from a nation at war?


And are we applying the same rules to the other side? Is flying planes into buildings and blowing up civilians in nightclubs or embassies any better? Is torturing your own civilians unto death a pillar of moral righteousness?

What's the point? War is evil. We already knew that.

Edit:

Perhaps if the world had been of one voice regarding getting a totalitarian brutal murdering maniac out of office, instead of giving him valuable international support, there would have been no war.

I blame "the coalition of the unwilling" just as much, if not more so than anyone else for the war. If a man is beating his wife and kids to death, we have a moral obligation to get in there and stop him. Those that used "peace activism" to support a brutal regime and perpetuate it by tading with him, are as guilty as a person who knows a child is being beaten, and endorses the behaviour.

Human rights FIRST
International sovereignty SECOND

[ 08-11-2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

What yorick said.

War=no rules.

I dont see what all the fuss is about. Napalm is an incendiary munition, NOT a chemical weapon. Firebombs are in the same category as the F.A.E. bomb and the daisy cutter bomb.They explode and burn everything in their kill radius. A chem. weapon would be something mustard gas or blister gas.

But who decides to stop him? -> It is "Judge and Jury" and NOT just "a stronger man"
And who stops him -> again it is "Police" and not any vigilante who decides to.

"Human Rights" here equals "law" in a normal trial "International sovereignty" equals "civil rights".
The strong point is that you cannot enact law while violating civil rights without becoming a felon yourself.
The elected "judge and jury" for world and countries is - for a lack of anything better - the UN who has the power to enlist parts of national armies as its police force (blue-helmets). But you get a judge by common consensus and policemen by hiring NOT by your own choice alone.

Say I suddenly decided that the justice system in my country is doing a bad job and left my house packing an assault rifle and a sawed-off shotgun (which are both illegal in my country but who cares, I did not sing/approve of that law). Then I proceed to hunt down and shoot a man I strongly believe to be a serial killer, a man who is on trial but not yet convicted. I don't think I would or should get away with this because it should not be in ONE man's power to judge.

As Hunter of Jahanna pointed out, what's the problem? Napalm is a conventional weapon, not a chemical one in the current sense of the term. Would you dub a flamethrower a chemical weapon? I guess not, and napalm is just a variation on the theme. It's not a pleasant way to die, but a bullet in your abdomen isn't either. Or a 20 mm A10 shell setting your tank afire.

I am not saying that I like this, but I cannot see what the fuss is all about.

Also, it has been banned for use against civilians, but I guess normal bombs are banned as well for that purpose. Or gunfire.

So Napalm or variation of Napalm 77 is not a chemical? What long term consequences come from dropping this sort of mostly banned petroleum-based "chemical weapon"?

What about cluster bombs? We used these mostly banned wmd's in Iraq as well.

But who decides to stop him? -> It is "Judge and Jury" and NOT just "a stronger man"
And who stops him -> again it is "Police" and not any vigilante who decides to.

Quote:

Human rights FIRST International sovereignty SECOND

"Human Rights" here equals "law" in a normal trial "International sovereignty" equals "civil rights".
The strong point is that you cannot enact law while violating civil rights without becoming a felon yourself.
The elected "judge and jury" for world and countries is - for a lack of anything better - the UN who has the power to enlist parts of national armies as its police force (blue-helmets). But you get a judge by common consensus and policemen by hiring NOT by your own choice alone.

Say I suddenly decided that the justice system in my country is doing a bad job and left my house packing an assault rifle and a sawed-off shotgun (which are both illegal in my country but who cares, I did not sing/approve of that law). Then I proceed to hunt down and shoot a man I strongly believe to be a serial killer, a man who is on trial but not yet convicted. I don't think I would or should get away with this because it should not be in ONE man's power to judge. </font>[/QUOTE]The last time I totally lost control and succumbed to mind numbing rage was seven or eight years ago, when I saw a man callously beating his beautiful little blonde curly haired daughter on the grass outside my apartment.

I was on the third floor (that would be the second floor in America), so that prevented me physically intervening, but my subsequent animalist rage filled verbal abuse, meant that he stopped and left the area.

My point being, if the police show an unwillingness or are unable to prevent or repair a situation, there is a moral obligation on those around to do so, and it can be argued, have an innate instinct to act in such circumstances.

But this oes back to my point about the international community. I hold to the opinion, that if Hussein had no friends, if every nation unanimously voted for war, no war would have eventuated. That includes, China, Russia, France, Germany, dissenters in England and America and Australia, and every Muslim nation that stood by and watched a dictator oppress Shiites, Kurds and his own Sunnis in a reign of brutality, repression and fear.

WOMD or not (and I don't believe there are, based on Richard Butler's assesments) the international community had an OBLIGATION to remove Hussein, and miserably failed in it's duty for far to long.

Yep the people against the war are more to blame, Riiiiight. :rolleyes: They are to blame for the 6-8 thousand civilian deaths caused by the coalition. Riiiight :rolleyes:

The idea that either side of the conflict is morally superior than the other is a farce. Justify killing however you want, even if contradicts a rede or rule.

I will die, knowing that evil exists in the world, but my hands are as clean from the evils of war as I can get them.
[ 08-11-2003, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

There probably are no long term efect from napalm , aside from the wounds it causes. Napalm is just a gelled gasoline. You can make it at home by mixing gasoline or kerosine with laundry detergent or egg whites. You can also whip up a batch by disolving styrofoam into the gasoline.


Cluster bombs are a horse of a diffrent color. a 500lb. cluster bomb will pop open and deploy a batch of small grenades over a given blast area. They are the perfect tool for getting rid of large groups of men and mateial. The downside is that any of the grenades that dont go off in the imedeate drop are potential land mines that can kill and maim civilians going through the area.

That is my opinion yes. If refusing to get involved in a situation causes ongoing death, you are part of the problem. If refusing to get involved in a situation, when doing so prevents an escalation of conflict, then you are part of the problem.

Those nations against the war ended up being part of the cause, in my opinion, due to the opposition creating legitimacy for Husseins regime; legitimacy, legality, and support within the international community. I repeat, if he was without international friends, he would have folded long ago.

One side CAN have moral highground. Violence can be a means to a productive end, rather than destructive end. In this sense, though evil is still commited, the one with the more positive END has the moral highground. So it is hardly a 'farce'.

Your hands are as muddy as the rest. Do you purchase products? Are you not part of the capitalist system? By paying taxes, spending money, voting/not voting, you are part of the problem as much as the next person. It is impossible to have you hands clean, much as you would like them to be.

My hands are as clean as I can get them, thats what I said, so dont pretend I said otherwise.

OK - let's start shooting some prisoners :rolleyes:

----------------

Just for clarification. The bombs used are MK 77, mark 5 - which isn't napalm (unlike marks 1-4). The benzen has been replaced by jetfuel. So when Military spokesmen denied the use of napalm, they were technically speaking the truth.

The problem with such weapon is that they by no means are presition weapons - they kill everything nearby. So for me the real question has to bbe: Where they used where civilians could get hit, or purely against military targets?

Hey, i'm not saying that it should be like that, but unfortunately that's the way it is,war brings out the worst in people.

About your shooting comment, i think that's already happening whereever wars are being fought. Welcome to the world.

Hey, i'm not saying that it should be like that, but unfortunately that's the way it is,war brings out the worst in people.</font>[/QUOTE]Exactly. Why would we expect otherwise?

My hands are as clean as I can get them, thats what I said, so dont pretend I said otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE]But they're not. Are you spending any money on products owned by companies that make weapons? Check and make sure. Otherwise your dollar is helping fund what you're opposing.

Be careful when ask these questions or you may land someone a hefty fine:
<a href="http://www.unknownnews.net/0626-2.html" target="_blank">
<FONT SIZE=+1>Company fined $6,000 for
answering customer's question</FONT>
</a><FONT SIZE=+1>"Is any of this stuff made in Israel?"</FONT>


by Helen &amp; Harry Highwater, Unknown News <NOBR></NOBR> <NOBR>June 27, 2003</NOBR>


A Missouri company has been fined $6,000 for answering a customer's question and not reporting to the federal government that the question was asked. The question that's punished by law is: Are any of these products made in Israel, or made of Israeli materials?

<FONT COLOR=blue>The Kansas City Star</FONT> reports:<BLOCKQUOTE> The anti-boycott provisions bar U.S. companies from providing information about their business relationships with Israel. They also require that receipt of boycott requests be reported to the Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly known as the Bureau of Export Administration.</BLOCKQUOTE>

My hands are as clean as I can get them, thats what I said, so dont pretend I said otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE]But they're not. Are you spending any money on products owned by companies that make weapons? Check and make sure. Otherwise your dollar is helping fund what you're opposing. </font>[/QUOTE]What part of my hands are as clean as I can get them do you not understand? What do you think that means? That I consciously buy products and invest in companies that perpetuate the military industrial complex? You have picked an arguement with a social responible activist investor who indeed screens his investments to insure they arent going into the war industry. AS CLEAN AS I CAN GET THEM MEANS AS CLEAN AS I CAN GET THEM.

http://www.socialinvest.org/areas/sriguide/

Are you happy now, or do you want to carry on. Whats your motive here Yorick? Do you want to prove that I have as much blood on my conscience as you? Go for it. It still stands I opposed the war and I oppose violence. I oppose the actions that killed thousands of innocents and combatents alike.

I can pretend my tax dollars went to anything but the war machine, I get my voice on the matter and my goverment pays for more than just war with those dollars. I can't get my hands TOTALLY CLEAN and still use the system to change it from within, or I would have said MY HANDS ARE TOTALLY CLEAN FROM THE VIOLENCE OF WAR. That doesnt mean my conscious principles are sacrificed or abandoned. It doesn't mean I am a hypocrite because I truly believe thou shall not kill and violence begets violence. Nope, I walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

I dont see what all the fuss is about. Napalm is an incendiary munition, NOT a chemical weapon. Firebombs are in the same category as the F.A.E. bomb and the daisy cutter bomb.They explode and burn everything in their kill radius. A chem. weapon would be something mustard gas or blister gas. </font>[/QUOTE]Napalm has been banned by most nations for a reason it's nasty stuff, just ask some vets from Vietnam. The ONLY reason napalm is not considered a WoMD or a chemical weapon is because the US still uses it.

http://www.infotrad.clara.co.uk/anti...mes/index.html

"The first napalm was developed by American technicians of the Chemical Corps during the Second World War."

"I do not have definitive statistics, but it seems that only about thirty per cent of those wounded by napalm and not killed outright can be saved. If the victim does survive, the dermatological consequences of napalm burns are especially serious. After the surgery there is a great risk of superinfections. Poor grafting also leaves serious after-effects. Retractile skin and contraction of scars form huge welts which will need further treatment. Keloid and hypertrophic scars will form to limit and inhibit the normal elasticity of the skin, which in turn inhibits the normal movement {198} of the member. These scars are prone to pyodermic and microdermic infections. The new skin is extremely fragile, and scleroatrophied skin will always be susceptible to minor infections that a normal skin would easily combat."

Primary effect:

There are five degrees of burn:

1st degree: outer skin only

2nd degree: to inner layer of outer skin

3rd degree: to inner layer of inner skin

4th degree: to deepest hypodermic layer

5th degree: to muscle

Burn victims of napalm do not experience 1st degree burns due to the adhesive properties of napalm that stick to the skin. 85% of burn victims experience 4th or 5th degree burns. The pain is so excruciating that people have died from the pain alone.

Two thirds of victims have burns covering 25% of their body. If a body has burns covering 50% of their body and 20% of the burns are 4th or 5th degree burns then death is almost certain. Victims who recover from 4th or 5th degree burns develop hideous scars called keloids which also bring about motor disturbances.

Secondary effects:

A large amount of carbon monoxide is produced once a napalm bomb is set off. It makes it very hard for people to breath which causes them to pass out and burn. Carbon monoxide poisoning itself can be serious. Disturbances of the nervous system, insomnia, weakness and low temperature are common symptoms.

Napalm victims also suffer from burned windpipes and shock. Bones can alter themselves and sometimes blood and internal organs are affected.


Still think that napalm is okay?

Well, it's still not comparable with agents imho. Sure, it's a horrible tool, but so is a daisy cutter, or even a Bouncing Betty. War is no picknick.

Chemical and biological weapons are banned because of the horror caused by their usage. Napalm's cost on humanity is no different than any other chemical weapon, imho.

Chemical and biological weapons are banned because of the horror caused by their usage. Napalm's cost on humanity is no different than any other chemical weapon, imho. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, let's ban the entire militairy and everything involved then. :D

<font color=orange>If it keeps me from being killed on the battlefield, YEAP!!!

It's also a Pandora's box that's been opened.
WMD's (by anyone's definition - apart from the US/UK) have been used both in Afghanistan and now Iraq - and in Iraq serious chemical munitions were used.

The message being sent around the world is clear - WMD's and chemical weapons are legitimate in war - if the US ever attacks you it will have no hesitation using them first - so you better make sure that you develop your own stocks of the stuff.

No doubt that countries feeling threatened by the US (for whatever reason), like Syria, Iran, North Korea etc have now put their factories into overdrive to get as much of the stuff ready as possible (and possibly are working as hard as possible to get nuclear protection too).

Welcome to the New World Order - forty years of progress flushed down the toilet.

[ 08-11-2003, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Progress ? What progress ?

Yorick, if my hands are "muddy as the rest" just because I continue to live my life, then you've created a tall order for your general populace. One that requires those on any side of an issue shut out life, march against the establishment, and refuse to buy anything -- in the modern day USA, resulting in death of course. It is an order you cannot and do not live up to.

As for the Napalm, do we really consider it a "chemical weapon." I mean, if that's the case, then isn't EVERY weapon a "chemical weapon?" Where do we draw the line?

Sadly the 40 some-odd years of progress was only due to MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). With the neo-cons in power here and the fact a large part of their agenda is to forestall any other country form being able to rival the US as a world power I only see things getting worse. The administration already has the nuke labs working on low-yeild ground pentrating nucs, so called 'bunker busters'. Making the likely hood of use of nukes in battle much higher.

Chemical and biological weapons are banned because of the horror caused by their usage. Napalm's cost on humanity is no different than any other chemical weapon, imho. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, let's ban the entire militairy and everything involved then. :D </font>[/QUOTE]Killing someone in war is one thing, making them suffer while killing them is completely different. If Saddam had used napalm, I'm willing to bet there would be a much bigger fuss.

Napalm is not considered a chemical weapon, but only because the US deems it fit not to. Irregardless of whether it's classified as chemical, biological, or conventional the damage and horror that it causes is very real and inhumane.

You can call a dog a cat, but at the end of the day it's still a dog.

Would there? Why didn't he use it, in fact? I mean, IIRC the Anarchist's cookbook reveals that gasoline + laundry detergent basically = napalm.

Would there? Why didn't he use it, in fact? I mean, IIRC the Anarchist's cookbook reveals that gasoline + laundry detergent basically = napalm. </font>[/QUOTE]Since I wasn't there, I'm not sure why Saddam didn't use it but I'll take a guess: He didn't have any WoMD?

Napalm is a jellied gasoline and the modern day version is made up of polystyrene (46 parts), gasoline (33 parts) and benzene (21 parts). Even if Saddam could make it, he still had no delivery agent. A napalm grenade perhaps? :D

Would there? Why didn't he use it, in fact? I mean, IIRC the Anarchist's cookbook reveals that gasoline + laundry detergent basically = napalm. </font>[/QUOTE]Since I wasn't there, I'm not sure why Saddam didn't use it but I'll take a guess: He didn't have any WoMD?

Napalm is a jellied gasoline and the modern day version is made up of polystyrene (46 parts), gasoline (33 parts) and benzene (21 parts). Even if Saddam could make it, he still had no delivery agent. A napalm grenade perhaps? :D </font>[/QUOTE]My point exactly. Grounded planes = no use for Napalm.

Quote:

war = no rules "all is fair in love and war"

Basically you are right if you argue: "Why does it matter HOW a person dies in war?"

BUT

Classic War like Szun Tsu, Wallenstein or Clausewitz knew it has been abolished in the 20th century. since the mid 1920ies war was officially outlawed internationally (Briand-Kellog pact).
Wars that are fought by NATO or the US today always have a touch of a police matter. And for that there must be rules because it DOES matter if you cuff a culprit or if you maim and gut him (= if you strike strategic military points or if you carpet bomb cities).
According to International treaties everybody who starts an aggressive war is violating International law (like Saddam in Kuwait) ergo he is a war criminal.
But say he can come up with a good excuse for why he invaded the country (say: "They were hiding Osama and they're all bloody terrorists anyway) he may get away with it BUT he may not use excessive force (ABC weapons, 1000+ m/s bullets, ...) in what he tries to rectify as a police operation.

[ 08-11-2003, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

We know he couldn't, but I was suggesting that if he had, do you think everyone would be so aloof? I think not. Had Saddam used napalm, or something with similiar destructive capabilities, the consensus on it's usage would be a lot different, but since it was the US who used it, everything's good right?

I find it hypocritical to invade a country on the pretense of removing horrofic weapons while using the very same weapons to do so.

here's a completely fictional dialogue between two USAM strategists
but I just figure that it could have (I DON'T say it has) been that way

A: Now, let's face it. We lost that Vietnam war only because a bunch of Hippies could not stand watching that girl burning alive.
B: Now what do we do?
A: We could stop napalming villages.
B: OR we could just censor the news media!
A: Great idea, let's do THAT.

the outcry about inappropriate use of force of the US military is far bigger in Europe because we have less biased news reports and even bigger in Arab countries because they have reversely biased news reports. Most people will believe what their television set tells them. And if Al-Jazeera tells them that the evil US has just bombed 3 Aspirin factories with 2000 child workers under age 8 inside they will root for Saddam while if FOX tells them that these factories were actually nuclear laser beam anti-aircraft bases and that they had to drop the H-bomb to counter their fission with our fusion* they will root for Dubya.


*I am well aware that scientifically speaking this is a load of a bull's final metabolic product.

[ 08-11-2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

And your point is...?

WRONG!
Our policy is very clear. The forces of The United States of America have the the policy to: Strike with mass precision and destruction of the enemy with all conventional munitions, and has reserved the right to first strike with munitions of nuclear capabilty.

We refrain from the right of first strike with unconventional munitions; chemical, and biological. If our forces are attacked first by means of unconventional munitions, we have the right to a retaliatory strike of unconventional munitions to include chemical, however, we will refrain from the use of biological munitions due to an uncontrolled release that could cause harm to both civilian and natural resources.

However YOU want to THINK about Mark 77 version 5 incendiary munitions, it is type classified as conventional munition. It can be dropped on target, with no threat of a down wind or local hazard (outside of blast effect) to any unprotected forces or civilians. Has no long term affect at the drop site, and is safe for friendly forces to move through once the munition has expired.
The psychological affect that it produces could be part of a "shock and awe" campaign.

Felix