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

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Phuz

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.

That doesn't bother you?[/quote]

One of those Creative Conservative Non Denial Denials... I am amazed at the fact that folks just don't simply repost the above to every statement.. Just like the WMD and Proof of Intent on the part of Iraq to invade the US that the US had to defend against... by invasion of Iraq which had that not occured the above would not have occured either...

 

[Phuz]

LunarRay, what context/circumstances these 'facts' apply to is irrelavant (to me). The bottom line is you're been lied to.. again, and you don't seem to mind.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Phuz
LunarRay, what context/circumstances these 'facts' apply to is irrelavant (to me). The bottom line is you're been lied to.. again, and you don't seem to mind.

I mind a whole bunch. I think when the elected and their helpers seek to enact an agenda inconsistent with the best interest of the people they represent.. the entire nation.. that a change must occur. This will, I hope, occur in Nov. '04. My attitude is; in addition to the change certain legal issues remain. Those issues deal with the Invasion of Iraq and the lies that may have occurred to effect this as well as any other lies to congress or any other authoritative body where lying is a crime.

 

[AndrewR]

Hell, I'll admit it -- I am HAPPY that we're still using incendiaries. Those things are nasty and terribly effective which means that are troops are less threatened by the enemy, and they are effective in places where regular blast-frag bombs are not. Burn 'em out. Am I going to cry over them? Hardly.

 

[Gaard]

I have no problem with using them either. Like you said, they are effective. I think the arguement, however, isn't whether or not you agree with the use, it's that the pentagon denied using Napalm during the war. Ok, you can split hairs if you like and say that technically it wasn't Napalm. But the fact of the matter is...ok, I shouldn't say that...I 'think' that the pentagon was being less than honest (hey, where have I heard that before ) and their intention was to mute the complaints of the Napalm nay-sayers.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

MK77 750lb Napalm I have no idea why you guys a squiblin over the hydrocarbons used since all this does is effect burn rate and flash point which are important considerations depending on the humidity, temperature and target (personel or trees).

 

[LunarRay]

If I am to go to war it will be to win and I'm not very interested in fairness or proper or prudent or any of those things. If win means kill the foe... then let it be in what ever manner wins with the least damage to me first and secondly... and second by a large margin .. collateral damage to non combatants.

Causing me to go to war had better be based on the stated objective and this ought to be explicit, overt, and supported by the nation in general. Along side of me ought to be members of society from every race and religion and economic status. I won't abide by another scenario where almost every person in the trench was a minority or HS dropout... A cross section of our nation belong in the military supporting the system that provides the life we all have.

I may agree with an agenda that is openly presented but, will disagree with one slid by or lied about... based on the principal that I am the government what hired them to do my bidding. Just like when I hire a taxi. Take me where I want to go... and .. if I don't know where I want to go... don't take me where you want to go and tell me it is where I should have wanted to go....

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Hell, I'll admit it -- I am HAPPY that we're still using incendiaries. Those things are nasty and terribly effective which means that are troops are less threatened by the enemy, and they are effective in places where regular blast-frag bombs are not. Burn 'em out. Am I going to cry over them? Hardly.

I have no idea why "Napalm" is such a politically-charged word. It's simply a bomb that burns one to death "instantly" vs. one that blows you to bits intantly.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

Then webster does'nt have a clue.. "websters napalm" has'nt been used since WWII since soap was substituted with Polystyrene shortly there after... we never used Napalm in Veitnam either according to websters.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Hell, I'll admit it -- I am HAPPY that we're still using incendiaries. Those things are nasty and terribly effective which means that are troops are less threatened by the enemy, and they are effective in places where regular blast-frag bombs are not. Burn 'em out. Am I going to cry over them? Hardly.

I have no idea why "Napalm" is such a politically-charged word. It's simply a bomb that burns one to death "instantly" vs. one that blows you to bits intantly.

I guess somewhere along the line we humans figured out that there is a quality of humanness that attach's to the killing of another human... that it ought to be humanly done...

 

[Zebo]

How do you humanly kill someone? I understnd the time concept as to not make them suffer but to it's still killing and still inhamane no matter how you slice it... Well there are some gases and injections where you never know your dying at all. I guess that would be the best.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Zebo
How do you humanly kill someone? I understnd the time concept as to not make them suffer but to it's still killing and still inhamane no matter how you slice it... Well there are some gases and injections where you never know your dying at all. I guess that would be the best.

I guess one of them Neutron bomb things in a war situation. Other situations ... well, I'd rather build prisions.

 

[Matt2]

This is dumb. If the Pentagon says a Mk77 Firebomb is not napalm, who are we to argue? Did we build the bombs? A website that looks less than professional calls it a Mk77 Napalm and all the sudden we've been lied to?

As others have stated above, Napalm is a weapon used to kill people. It's no different than any other bomb or even the bullets from the hunting rifle I know many of you who are against the war own, it's meant to kill.

Burned to death or blown into hamburger, bombs kill, get over it, stop complaining about a situation you know so little about.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Matt2
This is dumb. If the Pentagon says a Mk77 Firebomb is not napalm, who are we to argue? Did we build the bombs? A website that looks less than professional calls it a Mk77 Napalm and all the sudden we've been lied to? As others have stated above, Napalm is a weapon used to kill people. It's no different than any other bomb or even the bullets from the hunting rifle I know many of you who are against the war own, it's meant to kill. Burned to death or blown into hamburger, bombs kill, get over it, stop complaining about a situation you know so little about.

I agree.