KillingtonZone.com

Used on Faluja?? Say it aint so....
I know the US never signed the treaty against using it....
buuuut....
If we did use it... How can we be fighting a war to save people from weapons of mass destruction and use them ourselves???

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

DMC wrote:Used on Faluja?? Say it aint so....
I know the US never signed the treaty against using it....
buuuut....
If we did use it... How can we be fighting a war to save people from weapons of mass destruction and use them ourselves???

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

I doubt it....I don't really see how this could benefit us strategically.....In urban warfare it's not as useful as it would be in the jungles of vietnam and such. I guess we'll see in time

E

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:I doubt it....I don't really see how this could benefit us strategically.....In urban warfare it's not as useful as it would be in the jungles of vietnam and such. I guess we'll see in time

Whats the difference....?
AND - how would you know such things?? just curious...

DMC wrote:Used on Faluja?? Say it aint so....
I know the US never signed the treaty against using it....
buuuut....
If we did use it... How can we be fighting a war to save people from weapons of mass destruction and use them ourselves???

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

Didn't realize napalm was considered a WMD. As far as using it, if it's in the arsenal and the rules of engagement allow for it's use, fire away, so to speak. This is war not checkers, kill them before being killed.

shortski wrote:Didn't realize napalm was considered a WMD. As far as using it, if it's in the arsenal and the rules of engagement allow for it's use, fire away, so to speak. This is war not checkers, kill them before being killed.

If we drop a bunch of napalm bombs on a neigborhood... Damn straight they are WMD's... IMHO... WMD are defined as a nucler, chemical or biological weapon
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/W.M.D.
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/WMD
http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html

The UN outlawed it's use around civilian populations in the early 80's but we didnt agree... As far as I'm concerned... Faluja is a city filled with civilians...
We supposedly destroyed all our napalm stocks a few years ago due to environemntal concerns..

It's just nasty stuff... On par with the chemical weapons used by Sadam...

Neither chemical weapons nor napalm are WMDs in-my-not-so-humble-opinion.
Biologics....maybe. Nukes certainly. But that's beside the point.

If the media's to be believed (and in this case I do believe them), we've generally gone to great lengths to avoid non-combantant casualties. Use of napalm in a city strikes me as going against that policy.

Not an expert on this either, but I'm not sure why we'd use napalm in a city either. Probably works real well for clearing woods and jungle and such, but doesn't seem that it'd work real well against concrete. (though wood structures would certainly probably burn.....)

DMC wrote:

shortski wrote:Didn't realize napalm was considered a WMD. As far as using it, if it's in the arsenal and the rules of engagement allow for it's use, fire away, so to speak. This is war not checkers, kill them before being killed.

If we drop a bunch of napalm bombs on a neigborhood... Damn straight they are WMD's... IMHO... WMD are defined as a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/W.M.D.
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/WMD
http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html

The UN outlawed it's use around civilian populations in the early 80's but we didn't agree... As far as I'm concerned... Faluja is a city filled with civilians...
We supposedly destroyed all our napalm stocks a few years ago due to environmental concerns..

It's just nasty stuff... On par with the chemical weapons used by Sadam...

I checked out the links and could find nothing that names napalm as a WMD. I would concede the fact, if we had dropped tons of the stuff on The city like we dropped on the jungles in Vietnam, that may be classified as WMD, but selective use of napalm against an armed adversary after making it clear that we would be engaging all resistance with all means at our disposal hardly falls into the same category as Saddam gassing the Kurd's. In my opinion your way off base on this one, you now put the United States on par with Saddam "It's just nasty stuff... On par with the chemical weapons used by Sadam" did I again misinterpet your intent?

BigKahuna13 wrote:Use of napalm in a city strikes me as going against that policy.

I think we've proven that we are willing to go against policy to accomplish our mission in Iraq...

shortski wrote:In my opinion your way off base on this one, you now put the United States on par with Saddam "It's just nasty stuff... On par with the chemical weapons used by Sadam" did I again misinterpet your intent?

No you did not... If we are using napalm - I believe that it's a WMD attack... It's a chemical weapon... It kills people in the most horrible of ways...
Whats the difference weather you skin falls off from a chemical or burned off by a chemical?

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 !

Dr. NO wrote:Hey, it's a freakin war. Like Shortski said, Kill or BE KILLED !

Tell that to the civilians(That we are protecting) shot while trying to flee the battle...

DMC wrote:Used on Faluja?? Say it aint so....
I know the US never signed the treaty against using it....
buuuut....
If we did use it... How can we be fighting a war to save people from weapons of mass destruction and use them ourselves???

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

This from the person that hammers people for bad sources ? Waiting for a "credible" source? "Rumoured" in the foriegn press? Probably the French foriegn press or that Arabic press agency.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_o ... _page.html

Looks like Blaire is in the "Hot seat" cause of this...

FALLUJAH NAPALMED

US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told?
By Paul Gilfeather Political Editor

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.

Dr. NO wrote:

DMC wrote:Used on Faluja?? Say it aint so....
I know the US never signed the treaty against using it....
buuuut....
If we did use it... How can we be fighting a war to save people from weapons of mass destruction and use them ourselves???

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

This from the person that hammers people for bad sources ? Waiting for a "credible" source? "Rumoured" in the foriegn press? Probably the French foriegn press or that Arabic press agency.

At least I admit my sources are not credible - yet... And i at least CHECK before I write - instead of trying to make myself seem important...

I was just starting a conversation...

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.