Napalm used in Iraq

[kramadas]

http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/7166474p-8113624c.html

Report: Marines dropped devices similar to Napalm on Iraqi troops

The Associated Press

Last Updated 7:06 p.m. PDT Tuesday, August 5, 2003

SAN DIEGO (AP) - Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders say they dropped firebombs similar to napalm on Iraqi troops earlier this year, according to a report published Tuesday.

The Marines say that in March, U.S. warplanes dropped dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River in central Iraq to clear the way for troops headed to Baghdad.

"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.

He could not provide estimates of Iraqi casualties.

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

The firebombs were used again in April against Iraqis near a key Tigris River bridge, north of Numaniyah, the Marines said. There were reports of another attack on the first day of the war.

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.

The newspaper said the spokesmen were apparently drawing a distinction between the terms firebomb and napalm.

Late Tuesday, Lt. Ryan Fitzgerald, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., told The Associated Press napalm was not used. He declined to say whether firebombs were used.

"We did not use napalm in Iraq," he said. "Napalm is not a weapon that we keep in our operational arsenal anymore.

"The real issue that I think you're trying to get to is, 'Are we using appropriate weapons?,'" Fitzgerald continued. "And yes. The answer is yes."

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.

Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Jim Amos confirmed aircraft dropped what he and other Marines continue to call napalm on Iraqi troops on several occasions. He commanded Marine jet and helicopter units involved in the Iraq war and leads the Miramar-based 3rd Marine Air Wing.

Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

"Incendiaries create burns that are difficult to treat," said Robert Musil, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a Washington group that opposes the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Musil described the Pentagon's distinction between napalm and Mark 77 firebombs as "pretty outrageous."

Before March, the last time U.S. forces had used napalm in combat was the Persian Gulf War, again by Marines.

[sassa]

their tactics are not fair at all. i know a bunch of you would probably say nothing is fair in war, but come on.... that's like how the US dropped 2 a-bombs on japanese civilians durings wwii. it's just nor right.

speaking of which, today was the anniversary of the day the US dropped them over japan. but i guess no one gives a fuck.

[skince55]

Originally posted by sassa

their tactics are not fair at all. i know a bunch of you would probably say nothing is fair in war, but come on.... that's like how the US dropped 2 a-bombs on japanese civilians durings wwii. it's just nor right.

speaking of which, today was the anniversary of the day the US dropped them over japan. but i guess no one gives a fuck.

WWII is a different topic...but it is pretty much agreed on by anybody that knows anything about the subject that dropping the A-Bombs saved lives (both American and Japanese) in the long run.

[sassa]

Originally posted by skince55

WWII is a different topic...but it is pretty much agreed on by anybody that knows anything about the subject that dropping the A-Bombs saved lives (both American and Japanese) in the long run.

sure it did

i guess that's why 160,000 people died that day. whose lives are more worthy of saving?

i didn't change the topic, i merely made a reference to wwii. God...

[cintron]

Originally posted by sassa

their tactics are not fair at all. i know a bunch of you would probably say nothing is fair in war, but come on.... that's like how the US dropped 2 a-bombs on japanese civilians durings wwii. it's just nor right.

speaking of which, today was the anniversary of the day the US dropped them over japan. but i guess no one gives a fuck.

yup. I don't give a fuck.

when you start a war, you must be prepared for the consequences, horrible as they may be. they decided to fight to every last man, woman and child, so we found a better way around that.

the actual death total is around 215,000, including radiation victims and others who suffered well after the blast. While that may sound horrible, imagine how many more would have died, had we not dropped the bomb and gone ahead and invaded Japan.

I have no pity for the Iraqi troops who suffered under napalm. People say it's horrendous because it burns them alive...

guess what, you're just as dead when a tank rolls over you, a bullet hits you or an artillery shell blows you apart.

Don't try to put a sensitive side to war. There is nothing humane about killing someone, and no amount of touche-feelie protesting about pain and suffering will change the equation that dictates people must die in war. Let's stop pretending and being naieve, shall we?

[just being my normal insensitive self]

[sassa]

Originally posted by cintron

yup. I don't give a fuck.

when you start a war, you must be prepared for the consequences, horrible as they may be. they decided to fight to every last man, woman and child, so we found a better way around that.

the actual death total is around 215,000, including radiation victims and others who suffered well after the blast. While that may sound horrible, imagine how many more would have died, had we not dropped the bomb and gone ahead and invaded Japan.

I have no pity for the Iraqi troops who suffered under napalm. People say it's horrendous because it burns them alive...

guess what, you're just as dead when a tank rolls over you, a bullet hits you or an artillery shell blows you apart.

Don't try to put a sensitive side to war. There is nothing humane about killing someone, and no amount of touche-feelie protesting about pain and suffering will change the equation that dictates people must die in war. Let's stop pretending and being naieve, shall we?

[just being my normal insensitive self]

bullshit. the war was coming to a close as it is. how many people really would have died had they not dropped those bombs? are you making an excuse for this sickening incident? i'm not putting a sensitive spin on anything, i'm just trying to be humane.

and by the way, iraq did not start this so-called war. the US did when it illegally invaded iraqi territory.

[skince55]

Originally posted by sassa

bullshit. the war was coming to a close as it is. how many people really would have died had they not dropped those bombs? are you making an excuse for this sickening incident? i'm not putting a sensitive spin on anything, i'm just trying to be humane.

I hope this part isn't referring to WWII. We either had to drop the bombs or invade Japan. Invading Japan would have taken a far more amount of lives(both Japanese and Americans, so don't give me that whose lives are more important bullshit). Do some research on it if you don't believe me. You will find that very few contest the fact the the A-Bombs saved lives by ending the war early as opposed to having it been drawn out to the end.

[kramadas]

Originally posted by skince55

I hope this part isn't referring to WWII. We either had to drop the bombs or invade Japan. Invading Japan would have taken a far more amount of lives(both Japanese and Americans, so don't give me that whose lives are more important bullshit). Do some research on it if you don't believe me. You will find that very few contest the fact the the A-Bombs saved lives by ending the war early as opposed to having it been drawn out to the end.

But why drop two? Weren't the Japanese well on their way to surrendering after the first one? Also, why on populated cities? A show of force in a sparsely populated area would have done the trick.

I have never, and will never support the use of a nuclear weapon on a civilian population.

Regarding the phrase "anything goes in war", how would you feel if chemical weapons were used by the Iraqis? I'm sure you guys would be screaming "war crimes" if that happened.

[cintron]

i'm not going to justify history to people who are too ignorant to study it.

find out for yourselves. read some books and some articles and see why we dropped two. While you're at it, read about the USS INdianapolis, the people who delivered the bomb and what happened to them.

maybe you'll learn to have a little more respect for the things that sometimes need to happen in war.

and if Iraqis had used chemical weapons on us, chances are we couldn't have done anything back. How about being glad they DIDN"T and that more of our soldiers didn't die, instead of wishing they had so that you could gleefully gloat over your little niche argument.

btw nice conclusion about WWII there. i'm sure if we'd dropped Fat Man and Little Boy in some rice paddies, the japs would've been tripping over themselves to put up the white flag.

shame you weren't around in 1945, we should have listened to you instead of the hundreds of military planners and scientists of the Manhattan Project...

fucking asinine and ludicrous, some of the shit i see on this board.

[kramadas]

Originally posted by cintron

i'm not going to justify history to people who are too ignorant to study it.

find out for yourselves. read some books and some articles and see why we dropped two. While you're at it, read about the USS INdianapolis, the people who delivered the bomb and what happened to them.

maybe you'll learn to have a little more respect for the things that sometimes need to happen in war.

and if Iraqis had used chemical weapons on us, chances are we couldn't have done anything back. How about being glad they DIDN"T and that more of our soldiers didn't die, instead of wishing they had so that you could gleefully gloat over your little niche argument.

btw nice conclusion about WWII there. i'm sure if we'd dropped Fat Man and Little Boy in some rice paddies, the japs would've been tripping over themselves to put up the white flag.

shame you weren't around in 1945, we should have listened to you instead of the hundreds of military planners and scientists of the Manhattan Project...

fucking asinine and ludicrous, some of the shit i see on this board.

Hey asshole, re-read my post before posting your rubbish. Yeah, i wasn't there in '45, and neither were you. I'm sory if I'm not as well versed as you in the justifications for using nuclear weapons on civilian populations. Right, just like you to support the use of nuclear weapons, as long its by the good ole USA. I'm sure you're also all for the Bush administration's push for developing advanced nuclear weapons...

Maybe you have trouble comprehending English? Where did I ever "gloat" or "wish" that the Iraqis used chemical weapons. I can't be bothered explaining myself to morons who cannot debate something without resorting to insults. The last few months I've been able to post on this board without engaging in personal attacks - thanks for now lowering me to your standard.

BTW, my first post was not even directed to you.

[ghhhhhost]

Originally posted by cintron

yup. I don't give a fuck.

when you start a war, you must be prepared for the consequences, horrible as they may be. they decided to fight to every last man, woman and child, so we found a better way around that.

[just being my normal insensitive self]

so according to your logic

since jihad = holy war....casualties of 9/11 should be taken with a grain of salt...theyre actually casualties of war...just like the people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

ethnic cleansing committed by Serbs/Croats/Muslims during the Balkan wars of the 90's...should be discounted...it doesnt matter...it was war..there's no such thing as innocents...

[mrmatas2277]

have u ever seen the estimates of the loss of life...on both sides...had the war continued?? the invasion of Japan alone would have been astronomical....no "one" person is worth more than another...but when ur talking about 250,000 (as stated by Cintron) compared to double or maybe even triple that....the Japanese were tenacious fighters and would have died to the end to defend Japan and their Emperor...

[ghhhhhost]

talkin to me?

[skince55]

Originally posted by mrmatas2277

have u ever seen the estimates of the loss of life...on both sides...had the war continued?? the invasion of Japan alone would have been astronomical....no "one" person is worth more than another...but when ur talking about 250,000 (as stated by Cintron) compared to double or maybe even triple that....the Japanese were tenacious fighters and would have died to the end to defend Japan and their Emperor...

I think the estimate for U.S. soldier deaths only not counting Japanese was over 500,000.

[kramadas]

How does one estimate how many people "could" die in an invasion?

Point is, we'll never know...and you're gonna have people who support it and people who do not.

You do realize that the new (or maybe the existing ones) "bunker-busters" are going to be some sort of tactical nuke. So much for non-proliferation, and telling other countries not to have WMDs.

[igloo]

Originally posted by raver_mania

You do realize that the new (or maybe the existing ones) "bunker-busters" are going to be some sort of tactical nuke. So much for non-proliferation, and telling other countries not to have WMDs.

Raver,

Not that I agree with the further development of nuclear weapons but the reason this has been pushed hard of late is that the modern US bunker busters weapons did not perform as well as expected in Iraq (and in some cave complexes in Afghanistan)...

Sadly, assessments indicated that the major bunkers used by Hussein were able to hold their own against our weapons---primarily because the bunkers were designed with the help of French and German engineers to withstand the force of our current weapons....which the U.S. found out about just now (the level of assistance was grossly underestimated)...

Talk about another intelligence failure....

[skince55]

Originally posted by raver_mania

How does one estimate how many people "could" die in an invasion?

Based upon how many men they think they need to send in along with the casualty rate of other battles in the war. Even if that estimate was entirely off and lets just pick a number and say 100,000 American soldiers would have died. You still have to take into consideration Japanese soldiers who were fighting till death, and the Japanese civilians who were in the line of fire. In the battle of Okinawa alone there were 12,000 Americans killed and 107,000 Japanese soldiers and about 100,000 Okinawan civilians.

[johnholmes]

Originally posted by sassa

sure it did

i guess that's why 160,000 people died that day. whose lives are more worthy of saving?

i didn't change the topic, i merely made a reference to wwii. God...

are you fucking kididng me,its pieces of shit like you tht need to be deported to where ever the fuck your anciestry is from and im willing to bet asian. they deserved everything they got so FUCK YOU u busted C

[ghhhhhost]

its people like u holmes..that make people like me and sassa hate this place and its people

[johnholmes]

Originally posted by ghhhhhost

its people like u holmes..that make people like me and sassa hate this place and its people

good get the fuck off, who needs pieces of shit who whine about whats humane when these fucks whether they be japs,arabs or any ethnic background wouldnt think twice about doing the same to us. fucking scumbags, tell your humane shit to veterans or people form the holocaust or 9/11 or any other tragic event fuckface

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by johnholmes

fucking scumbags, tell your humane shit to veterans or people form the holocaust or 9/11 or any other tragic event fuckface

Don't try to put a sensitive side to war. There is nothing humane about killing someone, and no amount of touche-feelie protesting about pain and suffering will change the equation that dictates people must die in war. Let's stop pretending and being naieve, shall we?

[kramadas]

Originally posted by igloo

Raver,

Not that I agree with the further development of nuclear weapons but the reason this has been pushed hard of late is that the modern US bunker busters weapons did not perform as well as expected in Iraq (and in some cave complexes in Afghanistan)...

Sadly, assessments indicated that the major bunkers used by Hussein were able to hold their own against our weapons---primarily because the bunkers were designed with the help of French and German engineers to withstand the force of our current weapons....which the U.S. found out about just now (the level of assistance was grossly underestimated)...

Talk about another intelligence failure....

Actually, weren't Saddam's bunkers supposed to withstand a nuclear blast...

well...I guess thats why they talk about "advanced" nuclear weapons...

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by ghhhhhost

talkin to me?

no its an open question....

[cintron]

*sigh* you children don't understand.

Jihad = holy war = war declared by a bunch of terrorist assholes.

= Terrorism. Terrorism and Ethnic Cleansing are NOT what I would consider to be "War." Terrorism is Terrorism and Ethnic Cleansing can also be referred to as a "massacre". Like the holocaust during WWII - that in and of itself was not war. That was mass butchery.

"War" is as stated by the Geneva Convention: armed combat by factions in UNIFORM. If i shot my next door neighbor and claimed it was a war against chinese, that wouldn't exactly be a war now would it? That would just be straight up murder.

If I was duly appointed by my govermnet to shoot my next door neighbor and he was say, a chinese citizen duly appointed by HIS government to shoot ME, then YES I would consider that a legitimate conflict.

don't try to twist the truth or think that arguing about how immoral war is or how horrible weapons are, will actually change ANYTHING. In war, people die.

If you want to claim that Jihad is a legitimate form of war and that the casualties from 9/11 were a result of combat, then I claim that the soldiers we've killed in Iraq, through use of various weaponry, are a legitimate retaliation. If Baath party leaders want to declare jihad on the americans [as Saddam has urged many to do on several occasions], then we're fighting back.

so basically, what this all means is you just sank your own debate and can all go fuck yourselves.

[bigpoppanils]

i personally dont care what weapons the US military uses to protect its own soldiers or fight with. with 2 conditions:

1. as long as civilian casualties are kept as low as possible

2. as long as the weapons arent biological or nuclear