Napalm gas.... ???!?!?!?

DMC · Post by **DMC** » Dec 2nd, '04, 10:22

Bubba wrote:http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/

The Sunday Mirror is your "reliable" source? Even among London's tabloids, this paper is viewed as nonsensical and unreliable most of the time.

I was more interested in Englands politics then anything..
I admitted the sources were not reliable...

Still waiting for a credible news source - but it's been rumoured in the foriegn press for a couple weeks now...

ski_adk · Post by **ski_adk** » Dec 2nd, '04, 10:41

Okay, Iraq is a total clusterf*ck, and the things we're doing there are wrong wrong wrong. But as much as I hate this damn war, and as much as I disagree with it, I don't think civilians and politicians should be dictating the type of weapons we use -- especially if we're worried about the number of American deaths. Soldiers love napalm (as long as it's not dropping on their head) because it provides a great shield and is VERY effective at neutralizing the enemy. Generals love napalm because of the psychology of it. Unfortunately, it doesn't really work all that great on people who want to die.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's an effective short-term killing tool that protects our soldiers who are in harms way. As for any long-term positive impact on the war effort, it's a flop. Why? Because it just reinforces the idea that Americans are cowards who hide behind superior technology and firepower. Furthermore, collateral damage increases because using napalm, especially in urban theaters is akin to using a sledgehammer to pound in a thumbtack. Innocent bystanders will increasingly be killed or horrifyingly maimed, providing more cannon fodder for the insurgents to use in their recruiting efforts. And then the viscious cycle of Vietnam-style guerilla warfare continues and the war rambles on, and on and on, like a killer Energizer bunny.

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Dec 2nd, '04, 10:42

DMC wrote:
Bubba wrote:http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/

The Sunday Mirror is your "reliable" source? Even among London's tabloids, this paper is viewed as nonsensical and unreliable most of the time.
I was more interested in Englands politics then anything..
I admitted the sources were not reliable...
Still waiting for a credible news source - but it's been rumoured in the foriegn press for a couple weeks now...

On DMC's defense, he never said the source was credible, and he was always careful to say IF the US was using such a weapon. If I understand...DMC is just looking for a discussion/debate point.

On that note...is it possible we would be using flame throwers? Although again I'd think it may be doubtful, it would be my weapon of choice if I knew combatants were behind the door in a room. I'd just fill the room with fire and case closed. Like I said it's unlikely, but that could explain why there would be "melted corps".

Does a flame thrower use the same cocktail that napalm does? I don't think it does...and on that note, would some still classify it as a WMD?

E

DMC · Post by **DMC** » Dec 2nd, '04, 10:50

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:On DMC's defense, he never said the source was credible, and he was always careful to say IF the US was using such a weapon. If I understand...DMC is just looking for a discussion/debate point.

These people should take the time to read instead of jumping to conclusions..

Some of these people have had it out for me for years now and have already formulated my stance in their minds...

Like you said a while ago - it's a status quo thing...

DMC · Post by **DMC** » Dec 2nd, '04, 10:51

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Does a flame thrower use the same cocktail that napalm does? I don't think it does...and on that note, would some still classify it as a WMD?

E

I think melting bodies from napalm is due to the bonding of the chemicals to the skin...
Pretty sure a flame thrower will just set you on fire...

But I'm not 100% sure

Dr. NO · Post by **Dr. NO** » Dec 2nd, '04, 10:53

Napalm is a jellied petrolium product. It sticks to anything and everything and burns at a very high temp. Not sure if it is used in flame throwers, but that fuel is similar.

As for a WMD, I do not think so, anymore so than a standard bomb. It is a contact or close proximity killer. WMD like chemicals and poison gas must be in contact and can linger for long periods. They might be dropped in the center of a town and move with the winds to kill others no near a target. Napalm is limited in it's strike area.

I believe it was on the banned list as a cruel use of force, like a dum dum bullet. yeah, full metal jacket so you only WOUND the victim.

shortski · Post by **shortski** » Dec 2nd, '04, 10:57

The UN outlawed the use of napalm, the United States did not sign on, for which I'm glad. The UN is useless body of mostly corrupt governments, to let them set what weapons we can use in prosecuting a war is ludicrous.

As far a using against civilians, if civilians we hurt thats bad, but unavoidable in a war in which the enemy chooses to act like cowards and tortures and beheads anyone that opposes them, then hides out in a mosque, knowing full well the outrage that will develop when we finally go into get their sorry asses, to freaking bad, toast them...personally I like mine extra crispy. I fully expect that if we continue to prosecute these enemy combatants, screw the politically correct term "insurgents", they're the freaking enemy, that the average Iraqi will see we are serious about getting them out at all costs, as was reported after the push on Fallujah, they will come around and help us in getting their sorry asses. No amount of twisting the facts and comparing the selective use of a weapon in a military offensive specifically targeted at enemy combatants, to the use of Chemical weapons against unarmed civilians, either by the main stream media, our x allies, France , Germany or even American citizens expressing their right of freedom of speech will make it the same, but it may help to undermine the effort we are trying to accomplish in setting up a freely elected government, chosen by the Iraqi people.

DMC · Post by **DMC** » Dec 2nd, '04, 11:01

shortski wrote:personally I like mine extra crispy.

That comment made me sick to my stomache...
Lst we forget

DMC · Post by **DMC** » Dec 2nd, '04, 11:03

shortski wrote:but it may help to undermine the effort we are trying to accomplish in setting up a freely elected government, chosen by the Iraqi people.

Even it's a government we don't agree with? Like a Muslim Theocracy? IE: The Taliban?

ski_adk · Post by **ski_adk** » Dec 2nd, '04, 11:14

I don't think napalm nor flamethrowers are considered WMDs to the US. However, in the international community's eyes, they aren't designed to kill quickly, but instead they're designed to maim and create substantial and horrifying casualty rates. The theory behind these weapons is that they provide a psychological and strategic advantage by creating fear and panic in the enemy as well as slowing him down because he now suddenly has to deal with an overwhelming number of burn victims. Unfortunately, this only works against an organized enemy, like WW1 and WW2 style military complexes -- large sweeping enemy lines and clear distinctions between civilians and military.

On that note, have you ever see "Tears of the Sun" or "They Were Soldiers?" These weapons are the things nightmares are made of. How would you feel if you torched a room because you suspected to find insurgents inside only to have innocent children run out in front of you, on fire, as you watch their skin melt and peel off before your eyes. All it takes is one mistake man. Is it worth that much to you? Could you live with that for the rest of your life? I know I couldn't. That's why I tend to agree with the U.N. on this one.

Post by **Bubba** » Dec 2nd, '04, 11:16

DMC wrote:
shortski wrote:personally I like mine extra crispy.
That comment made me sick to my stomache...
Lst we forget

Agreed.

I re-read your original post. I see you recognized the Mirror as less than a credible source. I checked the London Times site and didn't seen anything there about it, even did a search on Iraq & Napalm.

As for the UN....deeply (but not fatally) flawed organization that still serves a useful purpose in international diplomacy.

shortski · Post by **shortski** » Dec 2nd, '04, 11:18

DMC wrote:
shortski wrote:personally I like mine extra crispy.

That comment made me sick to my stomache...
Lst we forget

Yes that is horrible, that's what makes war so bad, innocent people get hurt. I'll still take my enemy combatant, shooting at me and trying to kill me or my fellow Americans, as well as any terrorist trying to alter the American way of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness extra crispy with a side order of 7.62 full metal jacket NATO round in the forehead. Graphic enough for you. Posting a picture of an innocent civilian injured during the Vietnam war, and using it as an example why the use of weapon approved in the rules of engagement against armed combatants in Iraq, is so juxtaposed that it goes to prove my earlier point about undermining the United States efforts to effect a lasting change in Iraq.

DMC · Post by **DMC** » Dec 2nd, '04, 11:24

shortski wrote:Yes that is horrible, that's what makes war so bad, innocent people get hurt. I'll still take my enemy combatant, shooting at me and trying to kill me or my fellow Americans, as well as any terrorist trying to alter the American way of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness extra crispy with a side order of 7.62 full metal jacket NATO round in the forehead.

How is any a-hole insurgent(or whatever you want to call them) going to affect MY life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness??

shortski wrote: Graphic enough for you. Posting a picture of an innocent civilian injured during the Vietnam war, and using it as an example why the use of weapon approved in the rules of engagement against armed combatants in Iraq, is so juxtaposed that it goes to prove my earlier point about undermining the United States efforts to effect a lasting change in Iraq.

That was the picture that cause the world(except the US) to ban napalm..

I got news for you.... This is a generational war...
Our kids - kids will be fighting this one... We napalm one insurgent and 3 take the place... We napalm one civilian and 100 take their place...

We need to stop the killing.. And approach this thing differently or it will continue on and on and on...

Pedro · Post by **Pedro** » Dec 2nd, '04, 11:28

Dr. NO wrote:To my knowledge, the US has not had Napalm for use as a weapon since Vietnam. I may be wrong, but I don't believe so.

NOW, they may have used a Gas Vapor type weapon. This is a weapon the is opened in the air above the target, vaporized and then ignited. Nearly anything below it is vaporized from the heat and blast.

Hey, it's a freakin war. Like Shortski said, Kill or BE KILLED !

Im not sure, but i think may have used some of the Napalm in the desert storm.

Pedro · Post by **Pedro** » Dec 2nd, '04, 11:36

Any description as to how we are deploying the napalm? Its not all carpet boming.