We used NAPALM on Iraqi???

  1. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=432201

    10 August 2003


    American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

    The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.

    A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war.

    The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad.

    "We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

    A reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald who witnessed another napalm attack on 21 March on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill, close to the Kuwaiti border, wrote the following day: "Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. 'I pity anyone who is in there,' a Marine sergeant said. 'We told them to surrender.'"
    •  
  2. 14 Comments

  3. by   OC_An Khe
    I agree with your TR quote, that said, napalm is a very effective weapon and has been used by this country for over a half century. Employed against the right targets I see no reason not to use it.
  4. by   Brownms46
    And the right targets are?? Iraqi people???

    Any the lie???
    At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. "We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on 4 April, 2001," it said.
  5. by   teeituptom
    Oh My God. sanctioning the use of new and improved Napalm. Burn them up. are we going to start burning witches again also. If you have ever seen Napalm used you would never sanction its use.
  6. by   2ndCareerRN
    "You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like - victory" Apocalypse now (1979)

    Flame and incendiary weapons dominated the battlefield for many centuries until the introduction of gunpowder in the fifteenth century. A form of Greek fire was employed by General Patrick Gilmore during the American Civil War. When the American Civil War started in 1861, the use of Greek fire was threatened but, in fact, never used.

    Flame and incendiary weapons have been used in virtually every war since that time, and are used in current conflicts today. Fire is an effective way of interrupting operations of enemy personnel and in damaging supplies stored in the open. Complaints of smelling something burning is a common symptom among Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD] sufferers who were exposed to napalm or burning flesh in various wars.
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...incendiary.htm

    My personal feeling is that if using an incendiary weapon helped prevent the death of any US military personnel during the run to Baghdad, then I would also sanction its use.

    Dead is dead, whether you are an Iraqi burned to death, or a US service member cut in half by a RPG round. Neither is a pretty sight,nor should it be. The horror of war is just that, a horror. Many people who are not physically injured are permantly scarred in other ways.

    I only hope the government can do a better job on helping the returning servicemembers than they have done in the past.

    bob

    San Diego Union article from Aug 5 telling about the use of "napalm" : http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...9_1n5bomb.html
  7. by   OC_An Khe
    bob,
    You have summed it up nicely.
    The right targets are the enemy who are trying to kill, maim and mutilate you.
    Purposeful violent homicide, that is what war is, it is never pretty and it does effect the survivors forever. If you don't want to deal with this fact then the only recourse is NOT TO GO TO WAR in the first place.
  8. by   SharonH, RN
    It's okay, Brownie. They're not American. :stone
  9. by   fergus51
    Even in war there has to be limits.
  10. by   Brownms46
    Originally posted by SharonMH31
    It's okay, Brownie. They're not American. :stone
    I guess the end justifies the means! How sad that one can be so callous about the death of another! Where did we leave our humanity? Those soldiers may have been just like one of the men, or women we sent over there to their country. Doing their duty, and protecting their country. I mean at least they had a real threat they were dealing with, as in being invaded!

    Does the fact that they had a maniac for a leader, mean it's ok for them to die in such a way???

    I don't want to see any of our troops killed, mained, or burned, just because our leaders thought it was ok to start an illegal war, and use such weapons. Strange how it's ok for us to use such weapons, but not SH?????
    Last edit by Brownms46 on Aug 14, '03
  11. by   SharonH, RN
    Originally posted by Brownms46
    I guess the end justifies the means! How sad that one can be so callous about the death of another! Where did we leave our humanity? Those soldiers may have been just like one of the men, or women we sent over there to their country. Doing their duty, and protecting their country. I mean at least they had a real threat they were dealing with, as in being invaded!

    Does the fact that they had a maniac for a leader, mean it's ok for them to die in such a way???

    I don't want to see any of our troops killed, mained, or burned, just because our leaders thought it was ok to start an illegal war, and use such weapons. Strange how it's ok for us to use such weapons, but not SH?????

    I hear ya. It's those darned double standards. Unfortunately, there are those who really do think it's okay because they weren't American.
  12. by   Brownms46
    I find it hard to wrap mind around such a concept Sharon. I read the words...but I just can't make sense of it
  13. by   Ted
    "You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like - victory" Apocalypse now (1979)
    "Apocalypse Now" has been and remains today to be one of my favorite movies! This movie explores how warped and hellish the human soul (mind) can become during times of war.

    Of course this movie is fiction! If you know this movie then you're aware that it takes you down several levels of human insanity. The ending, with Marlo Brando playing a cultish and deranged leader of all-too-willing "death-bent" followers, shows how sick the human mind can become. The part of the film where the above quote is spoken by an army officer is more towards the middle. Sick, but not as sick as the character played by Marlo Brando. It is clear that this army officer is a bit off when he says the famous "I love the smell of napalm in the morning. . . " line. Yet, sadly and disturbingly, it can almost seem "O. K." to some people that this officer can be soooooo appreciative of the effects . . . and the small. . . of napalm.

    Well, it's not "O. K."!! It should never be O. K. that the effects of any weapon can be soooo appreciated . . . especially to the extent as exemplified by this ficticious army officer.

    Now, I'm not arguing the "Pro's and Con's" of the use of napalm used in Iraq or any war. I just stating my concern and hope that we, as a so-called "Peace Loving" nation, should never find ourselves involved in ANY war to the point of becoming like this over-zealous and "well down the road of insanity" army officer.

    Regarding the use of napalm on the Iraqi soldiers and people. I can understand and appreciate the military advantage of its use as a weapon of mass distruction. It sure can be effective. I just wish we practice what we preach and never ever involve ourselves with any weapons of mass distruction. This is my stance on its use. We shouldn't have used it. But then again, in my mind, we should have never invaded Iraq in the first place.

    Ted
    Last edit by Ted on Aug 15, '03
  14. by   Brownms46
    BRAVO TED!!!! So right you are!!! Gee...the lights going out must have sparked and stired something in people tonite! This is the second post, that I felt couldn't have been wrtten better! Way to go Ted!!

close