• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

US still loves the smell of Napalm in the morning . . .

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
SFGATE
(excerpts)
"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. Randolph Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, told the San Diego Union-Tribune. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," Alles added.

"The generals love napalm," said Alles. "It has a big psychological effect."

During the war, Pentagon officials denied napalm was being used, saying the Pentagon's stockpile had been destroyed two years ago. Napalm, a thick, burning combination of polystyrene, gasoline and benzene, was used against people and villages in Vietnam. Its use drew widespread criticism.

According to the Union-Tribune report, the Marines dropped "Mark 77 firebombs," which use kerosene-based jet fuel and a smaller concentration of benzene. Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily acknowledged the incendiary devices were "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons, but have less impact on the environment.

"You can call it something other than napalm, but it's napalm," said John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a nonpartisan research group in Alexandria, Va.
Officer: Son, why are you speeding?
Me: I wasn't speeding . . . I was exceeding the posted speed limit . . . there's a difference.
Officer: Get out of the car . . . I'm going to whack you a couple of times with my baton . . . but it's not a violation of your civil liberties . . . there's a difference.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,492
0
0
So what's your point? The only reason they don't call it Napalm is because everyone gets all Vietnam fired up when they hear that word. It's a tool of war, whatever you call it. Soldiers die, it sucks.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I think we don't call it napalm b/c the good guys fight with different rules than the bad guys . . . that's why we call ourselves the good guys. Saddam was filling trenches with oil and lighting them to obscure the enemy's line of sight. We were dropping kerosene/benzene fireballs on people. Which tactic would you defend as a legitimate tool of warfare? We invaded over WMD (well at least originally) . . . aren't they just tools of war? Saddam used far more chemical/biological munitions against Iranian troops than civilians, but that's a distinction without difference according to our government.

I certainly agree that war is an abominable enterprise but many people believe rationale and methodology matter.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,492
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I think we don't call it napalm b/c the good guys fight with different rules than the bad guys . . . that's why we call ourselves the good guys. Saddam was filling trenches with oil and lighting them to obscure the enemy's line of sight. We were dropping kerosene/benzene fireballs on people. Which tactic would you defend as a legitimate tool of warfare? We invaded over WMD (well at least originally) . . . aren't they just tools of war? Saddam used far more chemical/biological munitions against Iranian troops than civilians, but that's a distinction without difference according to our government.

I certainly agree that war is an abominable enterprise but many people believe rationale and methodology matter.
Nothing wrong with what Saddam did with the trenches. Ineffective, but not much wrong with it.

WMD's are tools of war, just the most extreme (and other than Nuclear, not terribly effective).





 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
It bothers me the pentagon used semantic gymnastics to avoid confirming the use of these weapons. But they do say truth is war's first and foremost casuality.

What's the harm in admitting to their use? One would assume there's a good reason to use firebombs around bridges (guessing here but perhaps to prevent damage to the bridge itself because you need it intact...possibly also to prevent the enemy from destroying it to hamper you).
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,159
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I think we don't call it napalm b/c the good guys fight with different rules than the bad guys . . . that's why we call ourselves the good guys. Saddam was filling trenches with oil and lighting them to obscure the enemy's line of sight. We were dropping kerosene/benzene fireballs on people. Which tactic would you defend as a legitimate tool of warfare? We invaded over WMD (well at least originally) . . . aren't they just tools of war? Saddam used far more chemical/biological munitions against Iranian troops than civilians, but that's a distinction without difference according to our government.

I certainly agree that war is an abominable enterprise but many people believe rationale and methodology matter.
The fact is that it ISN'T napalm. FACT. Jet aircraft don't use gasoline -- they use jet fuel or JP-8 or AVGAS. Calling it "gasoline", which in everyday parlance means automobile fuel, is incorrect and inaccurate. Similarly, calling these weapons "napalm" is inaccurate. Simply because there's an incendiary weapon does not automatically mean it's "napalm". John Pike is a fscking moron.

Further, incendiary weapons and fragmentation weapons and volumetric explosive weapons all do one thing: they kill. Would you rather die by fire, by metal fragments shredding your body, or by the air cavities in your body (including lungs and nasal passages) exploding? None of those are appealing to me. Why people are worked up over the mechanism is beyond me, unless we're talking WMD which, as the term implies, involves a level of lethality vastly increased from conventional weapons.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Are you really that dense?!
According to the Union-Tribune report, the Marines dropped "Mark 77 firebombs," which use kerosene-based jet fuel and a smaller concentration of benzene. Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily acknowledged the incendiary devices were "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons, but have less impact on the environment.
WMD (as ascribed by the Coalition) has no inherent lethality advantage over an AC-130 or JDAM. The countries using WMD in Iraq were the US and UK. How do I know? Who won? Who died?

I don't know John Pike . . . maybe he is a moron. But GlobalSecurity appears to have the facts . . . what do you have?
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.
Let me see if I can follow this argument . . .

March 2002: There are WMD in Iraq . . . and soon to be nukes.
Summer 2002: There are WMD in Iraq . . . and soon to be nukes.
Fall 2002: There are WMD in Iraq . . . and soon to be nukes.
Winter 2002-03: There are WMD in Iraq . . . and soon to be nukes.
early Spring 2003: There are WMD in Iraq . . . and other stuff.
Summer 2003: There was WMD in Iraq . . . and their used to be a nuke program . . . that's what we've been saying all along.


If you can't follow that try this one . . .
My wife loves pico de gallo. I can make pico de gallo with jalepeno or serrano . . . lemon or lime . . . but it's the effect NOT the ingredients that matter.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
It does smell good. But, so does JP4 dripping out the wings of an F4B and when they were fueling those internal combustion prop jobs avgas smelled good too.. Napalm or whatever it is goes boom and makes fire... what's a word... amongst bombspurts..
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Are you really that dense?!
According to the Union-Tribune report, the Marines dropped "Mark 77 firebombs," which use kerosene-based jet fuel and a smaller concentration of benzene. Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily acknowledged the incendiary devices were "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons, but have less impact on the environment.
WMD (as ascribed by the Coalition) has no inherent lethality advantage over an AC-130 or JDAM. The countries using WMD in Iraq were the US and UK. How do I know? Who won? Who died?

I don't know John Pike . . . maybe he is a moron. But GlobalSecurity appears to have the facts . . . what do you have?
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.
Let me see if I can follow this argument . . .

March 2002: There are WMD in Iraq . . . and soon to be nukes.
Summer 2002: There are WMD in Iraq . . . and soon to be nukes.
Fall 2002: There are WMD in Iraq . . . and soon to be nukes.
Winter 2002-03: There are WMD in Iraq . . . and soon to be nukes.
early Spring 2003: There are WMD in Iraq . . . and other stuff.
Summer 2003: There was WMD in Iraq . . . and their used to be a nuke program . . . that's what we've been saying all along.


If you can't follow that try this one . . .
My wife loves pico de gallo. I can make pico de gallo with jalepeno or serrano . . . lemon or lime . . . but it's the effect NOT the ingredients that matter.
So why is using such "fire bombs" bad? It kills the enemy just as dead as a bullet or a "conventional" bomb doesn't it?

I find this debate amusing because it is another attempt by the left to equate this Iraq war with Vietnam. By using "napalm" they use the same "fear mongering" they accuse the "hawks" of using. Napalm sucks, Bombs suck, and bullets suck if you are on the recieving end - this is war.

I wonder what the cry would have been if we had destroyed the bridge while using more "conventional" means of destroying the enemy? Mind you that using this sort of weapon(fire bomb) shouldn't affect the structural integrity of the bridge approach but does destroy the enemy.

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
You're missing the point of the article, as usual. The point is: the military said they weren't using napalm in Iraq, yet they were using "firebombs" which were remarkably similar to napalm.

"You can call it something other than napalm, but it's napalm," said John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a nonpartisan research group in Alexandria, Va.
It's classic double-speak and fun with semantics. I know that Cad is a particular aficionado so his appreciation must go deep ;)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
CAD says
I wonder what the cry would have been if we had destroyed the bridge while using more "conventional" means of destroying the enemy? Mind you that using this sort of weapon(fire bomb) shouldn't affect the structural integrity of the bridge approach but does destroy the enemy



How about one of them Neutron bombs Moonbeam mentioned awhile back.. they'd kill all sorts of enemy and not hurt the stuff at all... sounds good to me... but, on second thought.. they'd be nothing to rebuild for Halliburton.. or whomever..
Napalm don't remind me of Vietnam... Agent Orange does... Napalm reminds me of that movie.... by Francis whatever.. Jammed AR15s do and B52's dropping stuff all over the place does and rain... lots of rain.. but not this Iraqi stuff... it reminds me of .... Afghanistan..

(into the sixth week ?)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You're missing the point of the article, as usual. The point is: the military said they weren't using napalm in Iraq, yet they were using "firebombs" which were remarkably similar to napalm.

"You can call it something other than napalm, but it's napalm," said John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a nonpartisan research group in Alexandria, Va.
It's classic double-speak and fun with semantics. I know that Cad is a particular aficionado so his appreciation must go deep ;)
No - Napalm uses gasoline - the mark77 uses kerosene and a different mixture. Just because it has a similar effect doesn't mean that it is the same thing.

I do believe that people(leftys) here threw a fit when the Admin and/or the press called the Al-samoud 2 a "scud" (which it is - kinda) ;) pot-kettle-black

Nice try with the dig but it is you people who are making the stretch, trying to paint it as something awful to gain leverage - guess the last dart missed so another fired:p I keep saying - you leftys need to get off the Iraq thing - it'll only seal your defeat in '04 ;)

BTW -why is a "firebomb" bad? Or is this whole thing about likening this war to Vietmam as I asked earlier?

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
I don't really care what the ingredients are. It does the same thing. GlobalSecurity.com says it's the same thing as Napalm. I'm going with their take on it.
 

Phuz

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2000
4,349
0
0
So why is using such "fire bombs" bad? It kills the enemy just as dead as a bullet or a "conventional" bomb doesn't it?
You're missing the point.

During the war, Pentagon officials denied napalm was being used, saying the Pentagon's stockpile had been destroyed two years ago.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't really care what the ingredients are. It does the same thing. GlobalSecurity.com says it's the same thing as Napalm. I'm going with their take on it.
So a Scud and an Al Samoud 2 are the same? using the same logic? Do the same thing - just a little different config. ;)

Nobody seems to be disputing that they have a similar effect, but the truthful answer to whether or not we used Napalm in Iraq is - No -we used Mark 77 firebombs which are chemically different than Napalm.

CkG

Edit- another dart misses the board ;)
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
1) I'm not a lefty . . . I prefer the term . . . thoughtful.

2) Opposition to calling MK77 napalm is like Dell bristling at being called an IBM-compatible PC. The truth hurts sometimes.

If the US dropped leaflets, candy corn, or a nuke on the bridge we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead they dropped Napalm 2003 = MK77 = napalm-lite = not your daddy's napalm = incendiary device that's not really napalm if you ask DOD or CkG. Bill Clinton didn't really have sexual relations with THAT women . . . Ms. Lewinsky. George W. Bush was elected by the people . . . but not the people that actually cast a popular ballot. In-line skates not made by Rollerblade are often called Rollerblades. Laptops are now called notebooks . . . even the ones pushing 10lbs.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
1) I'm not a lefty . . . I prefer the term . . . thoughtful.

2) Opposition to calling MK77 napalm is like Dell bristling at being called an IBM-compatible PC. The truth hurts sometimes.

If the US dropped leaflets, candy corn, or a nuke on the bridge we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead they dropped Napalm 2003 = MK77 = napalm-lite = not your daddy's napalm = incendiary device that's not really napalm if you ask DOD or CkG. Bill Clinton didn't really have sexual relations with THAT women . . . Ms. Lewinsky. George W. Bush was elected by the people . . . but not the people that actually cast a popular ballot. In-line skates not made by Rollerblade are often called Rollerblades. Laptops are now called notebooks . . . even the ones pushing 10lbs.
So will you agree that an Al-samoud 2 is a Scud? Seems to me there was a discussion about this before the war started. Same concept - now people sing a different tune.

You see BBD - They are both "fire-bomb" but are chemically different. If the question was asked about using firebombs and was answered with a "no" then you'd have a case but the fact remains that Napalm wasn't used(to any of our knowledge;) ) but rather it was a mark77. Similar? - yes - the same? - no. Same as the Al-samoud/scud question. I really don't give a rats ass what you or someone else calls MK77 - it was used and Napalm wasn't. End of story.

This whole non-issue gets a -


Another wasted dart.

CkG
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
No one is saying kerosene is EXACTLY the same as gasoline . . . but your defense using MK77 as somehow laudatory and beyond reproach is rediculous. We intentionally dropped combustible semi-liquid hydrocarbon bombs during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, and Operation Get Saddam . . . get over it.



By this site's definition most of 'Nams napalm wasn't napalm.
They found that mixing an aluminum soap powder of naphthene and palmitate (hence na-palm), also known as napthenic and palmitic acids, with gasoline produced a brownish sticky syrup that burned more slowly than raw gasoline, and hence was much more effective at igniting one's target.

(The incendiary bombs that rained on Dresden were probably mostly made with phosphorus, not napalm, but I have not been able to find an authoritative source online describing the incendiary material.)

The safer napalm is known as "napalm-B", super-napalm, or NP2, and it uses no napalm at all! Instead, polystyrene and benzene are used as a solvent to solidify the gasoline.

Since the military would much prefer that the napalm burn opposing forces rather than their own forces, the military quickly adopted napalm-B, and it was this form of bomb-grade napalm which was used for aerial bombardment in Vietnam and which is currently stored in Fallbrook.

The above information comes from the Encyclopedia Brittanica article on napalm, and from Scott E. Harrigan, who kindly provided me with information about the various types of napalm as described in Incendiary Weapons by Malvern Lumsden.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Well since we are talking about napalm progeny I guess I should comment on Scuds.
I believe it is a common practice to refer to ballistic, solid-propellant rockets derived from the 1950s Soviet platform as Scuds. In as such, you're right for a change. Anyone arguing that al Samoud's aren't Scuds is performing Bushesque spin.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
No one is saying kerosene is EXACTLY the same as gasoline . . . but your defense using MK77 as somehow laudatory and beyond reproach is rediculous. We intentionally dropped combustible semi-liquid hydrocarbon bombs during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, and Operation Get Saddam . . . get over it.



By this site's definition most of 'Nams napalm wasn't napalm.
They found that mixing an aluminum soap powder of naphthene and palmitate (hence na-palm), also known as napthenic and palmitic acids, with gasoline produced a brownish sticky syrup that burned more slowly than raw gasoline, and hence was much more effective at igniting one's target.

(The incendiary bombs that rained on Dresden were probably mostly made with phosphorus, not napalm, but I have not been able to find an authoritative source online describing the incendiary material.)

The safer napalm is known as "napalm-B", super-napalm, or NP2, and it uses no napalm at all! Instead, polystyrene and benzene are used as a solvent to solidify the gasoline.

Since the military would much prefer that the napalm burn opposing forces rather than their own forces, the military quickly adopted napalm-B, and it was this form of bomb-grade napalm which was used for aerial bombardment in Vietnam and which is currently stored in Fallbrook.

The above information comes from the Encyclopedia Brittanica article on napalm, and from Scott E. Harrigan, who kindly provided me with information about the various types of napalm as described in Incendiary Weapons by Malvern Lumsden.
I'm not defending it's use by saying it wasn't "napalm". Napalm according to Websters is An aluminum soap of various fatty acids that when mixed with gasoline makes a firm jelly used in some bombs and in flamethrowers

I think it's use was good in this case. Destroy the enemy - save the infrastructure. How would you like to have seen us destroy the enemy in this case?

CkG
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Webster's is for poop heads . . . it's basically quoting the common usage despite the fact MOST napalm used in 'Nam was not napalm. The government dumped the name due to bad press not change in formulation.

Not that many people care but here's the peer-reviewed Polish text and a little emedicine. I decided pictures were not necessary.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Webster's is for poop heads . . . it's basically quoting the common usage despite the fact MOST napalm used in 'Nam was not napalm. The government dumped the name due to bad press not change in formulation.

Not that many people care but here's the peer-reviewed Polish text and a little emedicine. I decided pictures were not necessary.
So again I ask "How would you like to have seen us destroy the enemy in this case?" since you seem to want to demonize firebombs.

CkG
 

Bleep

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,972
0
0
What a foolish argument! The idea is to kill the enemy with whatever means you have. A exercise in word games, Is it? Is it not?
Is a little foolish, it is the results that count. The Republicans got so riled up in Viet Nam as to the use of Napalm even though the term became somewhat generic is a great weapon that not only kills but puts fear in the mind of the enemy. There are to many bleeding heart consertives on here

Bleep
 

Phuz

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2000
4,349
0
0
What a foolish argument! The idea is to kill the enemy with whatever means you have. A exercise in word games, Is it? Is it not?
Right, but:

During the war, Pentagon officials denied napalm was being used, saying the Pentagon's stockpile had been destroyed two years ago.
[/quote]

That doesn't bother you?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY