Is MK77 = Napalm ?? Phosphorous = chemical weapon ??

[elpres05]

I was watching this little documentary and had to close it midway due to some shocking imagery. These two ex- US soldiers admitted the use of phosphorous (burns your body, gas masks don?t work), and a possible use of another chemical agent called MK77.

Now, also in that film, Napalm was shown to be used during the Iraq bombing and the images of burnt bodies served the proof. But then it was told ?No Napalm, that?s MK77?. So technically, the US did not break any treaty. But what?s the point of ignoring this fact when MK77 is just as deadly as Napalm?

It?s like saying Iraq had no WMD but we still had to bomb it because of Saddam.

I think for the past 6 months, some facts did come out and now slowly spreading over the internet. It?s never too late I suppose and there is still time for a peaceful resolution.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: elpres05
I was watching this little documentary and had to close it midway due to some shocking imagery. These two ex- US soldiers admitted the use of phosphorous (burns your body, gas masks don?t work), and a possible use of another chemical agent called MK77.

Now, also in that film, Napalm was shown to be used during the Iraq bombing and the images of burnt bodies served the proof. But then it was told ?No Napalm, that?s MK77?. So technically, the US did not break any treaty. But what?s the point of ignoring this fact when MK77 is just as deadly as Napalm?

It?s like saying Iraq had no WMD but we still had to bomb it because of Saddam.

I think for the past 6 months, some facts did come out and now slowly spreading over the internet. It?s never too late I suppose and there is still time for a peaceful resolution.

So ****** what?

Would you rather we sent in soldiers to die in an ambush?

You either fight a war, or don't. It would've probably been better if this war wasn't started, but since it has, I'd like our soldiers to use any weapons necessary in order to limit casualties.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: elpres05
I was watching this little documentary and had to close it midway due to some shocking imagery. These two ex- US soldiers admitted the use of phosphorous (burns your body, gas masks don?t work), and a possible use of another chemical agent called MK77.

Now, also in that film, Napalm was shown to be used during the Iraq bombing and the images of burnt bodies served the proof. But then it was told ?No Napalm, that?s MK77?. So technically, the US did not break any treaty. But what?s the point of ignoring this fact when MK77 is just as deadly as Napalm?

It?s like saying Iraq had no WMD but we still had to bomb it because of Saddam.

I think for the past 6 months, some facts did come out and now slowly spreading over the internet. It?s never too late I suppose and there is still time for a peaceful resolution.

So ****** what?

Would you rather we sent in soldiers to die in an ambush?

You either fight a war, or don't. It would've probably been better if this war wasn't started, but since it has, I'd like our soldiers to use any weapons necessary in order to limit casualties.

Soldiers should use the way that's most effecient, that concerns less damage to buildings, civilians and such. Soldier casualties shouldn't matter.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: elpres05
I was watching this little documentary and had to close it midway due to some shocking imagery. These two ex- US soldiers admitted the use of phosphorous (burns your body, gas masks don?t work), and a possible use of another chemical agent called MK77.

Now, also in that film, Napalm was shown to be used during the Iraq bombing and the images of burnt bodies served the proof. But then it was told ?No Napalm, that?s MK77?. So technically, the US did not break any treaty. But what?s the point of ignoring this fact when MK77 is just as deadly as Napalm?

It?s like saying Iraq had no WMD but we still had to bomb it because of Saddam.

I think for the past 6 months, some facts did come out and now slowly spreading over the internet. It?s never too late I suppose and there is still time for a peaceful resolution.

So ****** what?

Would you rather we sent in soldiers to die in an ambush?

You either fight a war, or don't. It would've probably been better if this war wasn't started, but since it has, I'd like our soldiers to use any weapons necessary in order to limit casualties.

Soldiers should use the way that's most effecient, that concerns less damage to buildings, civilians and such. Soldier casualties shouldn't matter.

Whaaa?

Yeah, you're a funny one, I can tell.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Soldiers should use the way that's most effecient, that concerns less damage to buildings, civilians and such. Soldier casualties shouldn't matter.

You obviously don't have a loved one over there. Imagine having your brother/sister/dad/uncle killed because he couldn't return fire since hte insurgent was hiding behind a woman/mosque/child.

I agree with Meuge; you either fight a war or don't. My brother served over there for quite some time and his comment was that this war would be over if they were allowed to do their job. But people like you come along and say we can't damage buildings and civilians because it is wrong. Well, war is not supposed to be nice. It is hell. Ask anyone who has served and they will tell you the same. Do you think the insurgents care for their civilians? Why do they hide behind them? Why do they hide is mosques? Why do they teach their 6 year old kids to carry an AK-47?

All I can say is that we haven't heard a peep out of Japan since Fat Man and Little Boy. Maybe that solution would work over there. It is at least worth a try.

 

[Steeplerot]

If they were allowed to "do their job" they would be no better then the ones we sent them over to fight in the first place.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: elpres05
I was watching this little documentary and had to close it midway due to some shocking imagery. These two ex- US soldiers admitted the use of phosphorous (burns your body, gas masks don?t work), and a possible use of another chemical agent called MK77.

Now, also in that film, Napalm was shown to be used during the Iraq bombing and the images of burnt bodies served the proof. But then it was told ?No Napalm, that?s MK77?. So technically, the US did not break any treaty. But what?s the point of ignoring this fact when MK77 is just as deadly as Napalm?

It?s like saying Iraq had no WMD but we still had to bomb it because of Saddam.

I think for the past 6 months, some facts did come out and now slowly spreading over the internet. It?s never too late I suppose and there is still time for a peaceful resolution.

So ****** what?

Would you rather we sent in soldiers to die in an ambush?

You either fight a war, or don't. It would've probably been better if this war wasn't started, but since it has, I'd like our soldiers to use any weapons necessary in order to limit casualties.

Soldiers should use the way that's most effecient, that concerns less damage to buildings, civilians and such. Soldier casualties shouldn't matter.

Whaaa?

Yeah, you're a funny one, I can tell.

Even though the US has ignored a bevy of international treaties to start the war, execute the war, and botch the occupation . . . we still give at least lip service to some international conventions.

The Pentagon has gone to great lengths to extol the "virtues" of how this war was fought. To be sure, if the goal had been body counts . . . we could have done much better . . . or is it worse? Point is . . . the US military has made some efforts to limit civilian casualties.

But your premise that we can (and should) use any means necessary to limit US casualties is fundamentally immoral. Granted, war itself . . . particularly this one . . . is typically immoral so we may be splitting hairs. Clearly, the Pentagon wants to split those hairs.

In March 2003 the Pentagon denied a report in The Age that napalm had been used in an attack by US Navy planes on an Iraqi position at Safwan Hill in southern Iraq. A navy official in Washington, Lieutenant-Commander Danny Hernandez, said: "We don't even have that in our arsenal." The report was filed by Age correspondent Lindsay Murdoch, who was attached to units of the First US Marine Division.

The Mk 77 Mod 5 firebombs are incendiary devices with a function indentical to earlier Mk 77 napalm weapons. Instead of the gasoline and benzene fuel, the Mk 77 Mod 5 firebomb uses kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, hundreds of partially loaded Mk77 Mod5 firebombs were stored on pre-positioned ammunition ships overseas. Those ships were unloaded in Kuwait during the weeks preceding the war.

There was a report on Al-Jazeera on December, 14, 2001 that the US was using napalm at Tora Bora in Afghanistan. In response, General Tommy Franks said "We're not using -- we're not using the old napalm in Tora Bora."

The US Department of Defense denied the use of napalm during Operation Iraqi Freedom. A rebuttal letter from the US Depeartment of Defense had been in fact been sent to the Australian Sydney Morning Herald newspaper which had claimed that napalm had been used in Iraq.

An article by the San Diego Union Tribune revealed however, on August 5, 2003, that incendiary weapons were in fact used against Iraqi troops in the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as Marines were fighting their way to Baghdad. The denial by the US DOD was issued on the technical basis that the incendiaries used consisted primarily of kerosene-based jet fuel (which has a smaller concentration of benzene), rather than the traditional mixture of gasoline and benzene used for napalm, and that these therefore did not qualify as napalm.

global security

 

[Steeplerot]

If you have not noticed the pro-america first neocon war hyped crowd of people to be honest have no respect for international law. They hate the UN and are scared of every country but ours, no better then the taliban. Burn civvies? that's fine, bomb houses with families, oh well there might be a terrorist inside anyway. Whatever gets the brown skinned people dead at the end of the day. git r done for 'merica. Why do you think so many call them nazis straight up.

We are overrun. Our media is owned by the same interests as the imperialists who run the show and our education system is obviously lacking.

 

[dahunan]

I think we should renew research in tactical Nuclear Weapons and start using those whenever it is convenient

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
If they were allowed to "do their job" they would be no better then the ones we sent them over to fight in the first place.

No better? Are they over there torturing women and children? Commiting genocide? Gassing entire villages? Raping and pillaging? I don't think so.

I'm not saying that they should be let loose like a bunch of drunken rednecks trukey hunting. However, if someone with a gun hides inside a mosque or behind a civilian, I don't think that there should be any hesitation to take it/them out. Once a few civilians take a bullet they will learn to stay inside. Better them dead than my brother.

As far as using MK77 and phosphorous: why do you care how they die? Dead is dead. It doesn't matter one way or another. On the bright side, these weapons will burn all nerve endings, and while it looks bad, they won't feel much before they die. The enemy knows we are limited in what we can do. The worst that happens is they take a bullet if they open fire on some American soldiers. Even at that they won't be treated to a nasty bullet; only NATO approved rounds that won't do much harm unless they hit a major organ. Nope, we don't want any bullets that make it difficult to mend wounds on our enemy or cause shrapnel inside the body.

It is because of people like you that we will never win another war.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
If you have not noticed the pro-america first neocon war hyped crowd of people to be honest have no respect for international law. They hate the UN and are scared of every country but ours, no better then the taliban. Burn civvies? that's fine, bomb houses with families, oh well there might be a terrorist inside anyway. Whatever gets the brown skinned people dead at the end of the day. git r done for 'merica. Why do you think so many call them nazis straight up.

It has nothing to do with the color of their skin.

I won't argue over whether or not the war is virtuous. However, it is unethical to send our soldiers over there to fight a war, but severely limit how they can fight it. I can't believe we send soldiers to prison for using dogs to intimidate inmates all the while their soldiers are hiding inside houses with families. If we were to bomb one of those houses, I guarantee that the next time an inurgent runs inside a house, the family will get the F out.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: pinion9

It is because of people like you that we will never win another war.

We haven't been the deciding factor or won a war in ages excepting the pacific war in ww2, has nothing to do with if we follow international laws.

But feel free to use my view as a scapegoat if you wish, you will anyway.

 

[piasabird]

War is hell and people die. Sadam could have cooperated with weapons inspectors, but he wanted to be a murderous dictator. The biggest problem in this war is we have tried to fight it in a way to cause the least causulties. There are many people who think we should have killed everyone in the Sunni Triangle but we wanted to thought of as the peaceful liberators. There is no such thing as a nice war and in war lots of people die.

In world war II we attacked Japan with a very crude form of Napalm. So this is nothing new.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: piasabird
War is hell and people die. Sadam could have cooperated with weapons inspectors, but he wanted to be a murderous dictator. The biggest problem in this war is we have tried to fight it in a way to cause the least causulties. There are many people who think we should have killed everyone in the Sunni Triangle but we wanted to thought of as the peaceful liberators. There is no such thing as a nice war and in war lots of people die.

In world war II we attacked Japan with a very crude form of Napalm. So this is nothing new.

err saddam DID cooperate. what world were you on in 2003? the insepectors had to leave to keep from getting bombed by a chimp on crack, bush could have cared less what saddam did.

George Double-Yooh and the Oil Tree.

 

[elpres05]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
If they were allowed to "do their job" they would be no better then the ones we sent them over to fight in the first place.

No better? Are they over there torturing women and children? Commiting genocide? Gassing entire villages? Raping and pillaging? I don't think so.

I'm not saying that they should be let loose like a bunch of drunken rednecks trukey hunting. However, if someone with a gun hides inside a mosque or behind a civilian, I don't think that there should be any hesitation to take it/them out. Once a few civilians take a bullet they will learn to stay inside. Better them dead than my brother.

As far as using MK77 and phosphorous: why do you care how they die? Dead is dead. It doesn't matter one way or another. On the bright side, these weapons will burn all nerve endings, and while it looks bad, they won't feel much before they die. The enemy knows we are limited in what we can do. The worst that happens is they take a bullet if they open fire on some American soldiers. Even at that they won't be treated to a nasty bullet; only NATO approved rounds that won't do much harm unless they hit a major organ. Nope, we don't want any bullets that make it difficult to mend wounds on our enemy or cause shrapnel inside the body.

It is because of people like you that we will never win another war.

So using phosphorous is much better than taking a bullet? Dead is dead? We are not playing a computer game, this is real life, and comments like these only suggest you are "completely ignorant". How would you feel if I drop a bucket of boiling water on your face while you sleep. Or how about a Napalm bomb burning your genitals.

The thing is... if the US can't even follow it's rules, why should they be the policemen of the world. 1000's dead in Iraq, not to mention the extreme forms of torture (I have an image of a person drilled in multiple locations), and now moving to Iran.

It would be nice if G.Bush admits that he "wants to rule the World", at least this way no one will cry because the motives would be clear.

But what kind of message is he giving, on one hand, help build Iraq, on the other, kill innocents and torture them. How many video proofs do you want?

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Meuge
I'd like our soldiers to use any weapons necessary in order to limit casualties.

I bet that is what Saddam said before he gassed the Kurds. I bet that is what Osama said before he attacked on 9-11. I bet that is what our next opponent says when he uses Napalm against our troops.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: elpres05
I was watching this little documentary and had to close it midway due to some shocking imagery. These two ex- US soldiers admitted the use of phosphorous (burns your body, gas masks don?t work), and a possible use of another chemical agent called MK77.

Now, also in that film, Napalm was shown to be used during the Iraq bombing and the images of burnt bodies served the proof. But then it was told ?No Napalm, that?s MK77?. So technically, the US did not break any treaty. But what?s the point of ignoring this fact when MK77 is just as deadly as Napalm?

It?s like saying Iraq had no WMD but we still had to bomb it because of Saddam.

I think for the past 6 months, some facts did come out and now slowly spreading over the internet. It?s never too late I suppose and there is still time for a peaceful resolution.

It's a loophole, thats all...

By the way, the United States I don't think has actually signed legal documents, we've said we'd support the efforts to ban napalm like weapons...

Do you remember the name of documentary?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: elpres05
I was watching this little documentary and had to close it midway due to some shocking imagery. These two ex- US soldiers admitted the use of phosphorous (burns your body, gas masks don?t work), and a possible use of another chemical agent called MK77.

Now, also in that film, Napalm was shown to be used during the Iraq bombing and the images of burnt bodies served the proof. But then it was told ?No Napalm, that?s MK77?. So technically, the US did not break any treaty. But what?s the point of ignoring this fact when MK77 is just as deadly as Napalm?

It?s like saying Iraq had no WMD but we still had to bomb it because of Saddam.

I think for the past 6 months, some facts did come out and now slowly spreading over the internet. It?s never too late I suppose and there is still time for a peaceful resolution.

So ****** what?

Would you rather we sent in soldiers to die in an ambush?

You either fight a war, or don't. It would've probably been better if this war wasn't started, but since it has, I'd like our soldiers to use any weapons necessary in order to limit casualties.

That'll a win a war, but it won't win the hearts and minds of Iraqi people...

 

[imported_Goo]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Soldiers should use the way that's most effecient, that concerns less damage to buildings, civilians and such. Soldier casualties shouldn't matter.

You obviously don't have a loved one over there. Imagine having your brother/sister/dad/uncle killed because he couldn't return fire since hte insurgent was hiding behind a woman/mosque/child.

I agree with Meuge; you either fight a war or don't. My brother served over there for quite some time and his comment was that this war would be over if they were allowed to do their job. But people like you come along and say we can't damage buildings and civilians because it is wrong. Well, war is not supposed to be nice. It is hell. Ask anyone who has served and they will tell you the same. Do you think the insurgents care for their civilians? Why do they hide behind them? Why do they hide is mosques? Why do they teach their 6 year old kids to carry an AK-47?

All I can say is that we haven't heard a peep out of Japan since Fat Man and Little Boy. Maybe that solution would work over there. It is at least worth a try.

I got a better idea, just drop a few nuke in there and call it a job well done.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Part of the problem in understanding what we are doing in Iraq now is that too many people keep calling it a war. It hasn't been a war for quite some time now. The country, its leader, and the military capitulated. We are now acting as a police force in urban areas. The rules for police and military action should be very different. Would any of you condone an airstrike on houses in Chicago? Napalm (or its equivilent) in a Dallas neighborhood? Should the NYPD have a fleet of helicopter gunships to end high speed chases on the freeway?

It would seem to me that it would be morally corecct to impose the same restrictions on forces acting as police somewhere else as you would want on the police in your own city.

Professional military units will always make lousy police forces because they are trained to kill, have very powerful weapons, and are conditioned to use those weapons almost without conscience. We would never accept such a force in our own neighborhods. Why should we expect another people to be content with such a situation?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: pinion9Imagine having your brother/sister/dad/uncle killed because he couldn't return fire since hte insurgent was hiding behind a woman/mosque/child.

Imagine going out to buy some food and having your whole ****** family mowed down by "liberators" who wanted to kill an insurgent taking cover behind them. I bet you'd like that right? Oh wait, I forgot, war is bad so we can kill whoever the ****** we want.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Tab
That'll a win a war, but it won't win the hearts and minds of Iraqi people...

Ahh, but that's the problem.

You can't win the hearts and minds of a people until you break their will, THE major condition of properly and effectively winning a real war.

The US military uses a number of incendiary devices, including napalm-like weapons, which in certain circumstances are extremely effective in gaining a tactical advantage. Personally, I don't see how a fire/heat weapon deserves all this whiny attention. When a TOW missle impacts upon an armored vehicle, the end results are usually deeply charred bodies shrunk to almost half their normal size inside. That sounds pretty terrible, but I don't see anyone complaining about that.

Almost all munitions are "chemical" weapons anyway, and I doubt these particular "chemical" weapons fall into the traditional and popular understanding of chemical weapons that we use today, like the OP implies.

 

[BrownTown]

to get more to the point of the origional topic, international treaties which define what type of weapons are "legal" make no sense at all. Theres alot of pretty arbitrary definitions and loopholes and such, like wtf is up with banning hollow point bullets because they are more effective, that jsut means you have to shoot someone even more times to kill them... Or banning 50 caliber guns against personel, like its OK to blow them to a million pieces with bombs, but not a 50 caliber bullet... Basically its all pretty stupid and makes no sense at all. Even bans against chemical weapons make no sense, you can shoot people as much as you want, but can't gas them, why the heck not, they dead either way?

Basically what it boils down to is that there are a bunch of arbitrary rules about what weapons you can and cannot use, and you might as well follow them in order to not piss everyone else off, becasue there are 100 other ways to kill people if they won't let you use your first option. I guess part of it has to do with the 'nobility' of war whereby its supposed to be a fighting mans skill and bravery that save the day instead of new technology. Just think back to when crossbows were outlawed for being too destructive (since it meant nobility and their expensivve armor were useless), then later machine guns were ruled inumane (again, the noble Napoleanic warrior on his horsie cant do jack squat to not get killed in droves). Now people think chemical, bioloigcal, and nuclear weapons (all of which have been used in war by even the most "civilized" countires) are somehow bad because ohno they mean all you high tech weapons arent worth sqat (just like the machine gun and crossboe before). Its basically not worth much, because as soon as a REAL conflict breaks out between 2 developed nations (and not jsut the US beating up on 3rd world countries), there will not be anything held back. Just hope people are smart enough to put their differences aside and not use these weapons, but looking at history that is asking a whole lot. Maybe things are different now, maybe weapons are so destructive that war really will never happen again becasue its so horrible (exactly what they said after WWI, but that didn't last too long). Personally I beleive its only a matter of time before these weapons are used again, and lets be honest, the US is probably one of the most likely countires to use them...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
If you have not noticed the pro-america first neocon war hyped crowd of people to be honest have no respect for international law. They hate the UN and are scared of every country but ours, no better then the taliban. Burn civvies? that's fine, bomb houses with families, oh well there might be a terrorist inside anyway. Whatever gets the brown skinned people dead at the end of the day. git r done for 'merica. Why do you think so many call them nazis straight up.

We are overrun. Our media is owned by the same interests as the imperialists who run the show and our education system is obviously lacking.

LOL Steeple...your posts are so often filled with rhetoric I cant understand WTF you are talking about LOL I need a liberal decoder ring or something

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Tab
That'll a win a war, but it won't win the hearts and minds of Iraqi people...

Ahh, but that's the problem.

You can't win the hearts and minds of a people until you break their will, THE major condition of properly and effectively winning a real war.

Break WHO'S will? The will of the innocent family that happens to get in the way of a firefight, who really just wanted to go home with their groceries, or the will of the imported Al-Q fighter who actually expects to die fighting anyway?

You do understand that the vast majority of the people in the ops areas are non-combatants in the truest form of the word, don't you? That they are just if not more likely to die in insurgent attacks as American troops? These are the people that have TWO choices - support the US and point fingers on insurgents hiding in their midst, or decide that America is the greater evil, and begin to support the insurgents. THAT is the battle of the hearts and minds...and immature idiots like you who think that firepower is always the answer are driving them to support their local fighters, even if they don't back their political goals. Having family members killed by US troops dropping willy pete, napalm in any form, etc. are really good ways to convince them that we are no better than Saddam, and that the fastest route to peace is to get us out of there.

Dropped weapons of ANY type are by nature less targeted and more destructive than handheld firearms. As such they will always cause more collateral damage. There comes a time when limiting our losses in the battlefield via dropped weapons is counter productive if it gives rise to a larger, better supported insurgency. That's like trying to cure cancer by introducing a cure that causes more cancers...

FS