Using Napalm-like Substance In Iraq

[RedSkunk]

Napalm by another name: Pentagon denial goes up in flames
By Ben Cubby
August 9, 2003
"The United States military has admitted it used napalm-type weapons in Iraq.

A Pentagon spokesman had told the Herald it did not have any stocks of napalm, but it seems the denial was a quibble.

The Pentagon no longer officially uses the brand-name Napalm, a combination of naphthalene and palmitate, but a similar substance known as fuel-gel mixture contained in Mark-77 fire bombs was dropped on Iraqi troops near the Iraq-Kuwait border at the start of the recent war.

"I can confirm that Mark-77 fire bombs were used in that general area," said Colonel Mike Daily, of the US Marine Corps.

Colonel Daily said that US stocks of Vietnam-era napalm had been phased out, but that the Mark-77s had "similar destructive characteristics".

On March 22 a Herald correspondent, Lindsay Murdoch, travelling with US marines, reported that napalm was used in an attack on Iraqi troops at Safwan Hill, near the Kuwait border.

His account was based on statements by two US marines officers on the ground. But Lieutenant-Commander Jeff Davis, from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defence, called Murdoch's story "patently false". "The US took napalm out of service in the 1970s. We completed the destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001, and no longer maintain any stocks of napalm," Commander Davis said.

He was apparently referring to Vietnam-era Napalm-B, which consisted of inflammable fuel thickened with polystyrene and benzene. The inflammable fuel in Mark-77 fire bombs is thickened with slightly different chemicals, and is believed to contain oxidisers.

Neither weapon technically contains napalm

A Pentagon official told Agence France-Presse on Thursday that US forces used the Mark-77 fire bombs against Iraqi forces in their drive towards Baghdad and defended their use as legal and necessary.

The official, who did not wish to be identified, said that US marines jets dropped the fire bombs at least once to destroy Iraqi positions at Safwan.

The official told AFP: "It is like this: you've got [an] enemy that's hard to get at. And it will save your own lives to use it." There were no international conventions against it, the official said.

Marines used the napalm-like bombs on at least two other occasions during the drive to Baghdad, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported this week.

"The generals love napalm," the paper quoted Colonel Randolph Alles, the commander of Marine Air Group 11, as saying. "It has a big psychological effect."

Napalm was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980, but the US did not sign the agreement. The US military considers the use of Mark-77 weapons to be legal.

A spokeswoman for Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois said it was producing a further 500 Mark-77s for the marines. She said she did not consider them napalm bombs, but they are still referred to as napalm in some US documents"

---

Wait a second... Napalm?
Why get outraged when 4 Americans are burned and mutilated, when we're continuing to use a substance equivalent to napalm?

[IllustriousPotentate]

Because we were dropping the napalm bombs on enemy military positions that were trying to kill American soldiers, not civilian employees trying to deliver food, nor did we take the already burned corpses and butcher them, and throw their limbs over power lines.

[Jimsween]

I see nothing wrong with using napalm as long is there isn't a risk of civilian death. Whats worse about burning a man rather than shooting him?

[RedSkunk]

At 4/3/04 10:52 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Because we were dropping the napalm bombs on enemy military positions that were trying to kill American soldiers, not civilian employees trying to deliver food, nor did we take the already burned corpses and butcher them, and throw their limbs over power lines.

An army full of conscripts forced to join? An army full of children?

At 4/3/04 10:59 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Whats worse about burning a man rather than shooting him?

It's a longer, more painful, and more brutal way of dieing?

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 4/3/04 11:11 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/3/04 10:52 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Because we were dropping the napalm bombs on enemy military positions that were trying to kill American soldiers, not civilian employees trying to deliver food, nor did we take the already burned corpses and butcher them, and throw their limbs over power lines.

An army full of conscripts forced to join? An army full of children?

We had the draft too (granted, dodging it didn't mean an a death sentence), and it's not like these "child" troops are 7 or 12 or something. In most states, these "children" could be charged as an adult for crimes.

It's an army ne'ertheless. You're trying to put the military using napalm in a bombing on a military target that was or was not occupied by conscripted and/or/nor underaged troops at the same moral ground as a mob burning humanitarian aid workers, and it's just not gonna wash.

Hey, back in 1945 the Germans were drafting children into service as well, some as young as 15! Why didn't we just stop attacking them?

[IllustriousPotentate]

Ok, maybe they are 12. But those aren't Xbox controllers, those are AK-47's they're wielding. And just because they're 12 doesn't mean they can't shoot at you.

[Jimsween]

At 4/3/04 10:59 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Whats worse about burning a man rather than shooting him?

It's a longer, more painful, and more brutal way of dieing?

Not really, unless you think everyone who gets shot gets it in the head.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/3/04 11:21 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: We had the draft too (granted, dodging it didn't mean an a death sentence), and it's not like these "child" troops are 7 or 12 or something.

No, the article makes no mention of 7 or 12 y/o's. I guess you have a point there. But they are 10...
"During these 3 week long sessions, boys as young as 10 years old are run through drills, taught the use of small arms, and provided with heavy doses of Ba'athist political indoctrination."

In most states, these "children" could be charged as an adult for crimes.

I have yet to see a 10 y/o be charged as an adult. But of course - interrupt me if you have heard otherwise.

You're trying to put the military using napalm in a bombing at the same moral ground as a mob burning humanitarian aid workers, and it's just not gonna wash.

It's not? I say it is. Who knows how many people we burned alive while using this substance? At least they had the courtesy to shoot the four civilians before burning them.

Hey, back in 1945 the Germans were drafting children into service as well, some as young as 15! Why didn't we just stop attacking them?

You mean - 'why didn't we stop dropping napalm on Germany because they had 15y/o's?'

That's what this thread is about. To my knowledge - we didn't.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/3/04 11:29 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Not really, unless you think everyone who gets shot gets it in the head.

I guess we'll just disagree then. Personally I'd rather get shot...

[Jimsween]

At 4/3/04 11:36 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/3/04 11:29 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Not really, unless you think everyone who gets shot gets it in the head.

I guess we'll just disagree then. Personally I'd rather get shot...

Have you ever been shot?

[JoS]

Bleeding to death is fairless painful than being burned alive, and if you happen to survive, your in for a real treat.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/3/04 11:39 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Have you ever been shot?

Have you ever been covered in napalm?

[FUNKbrs]

A 9 year old with a gun is just as capable of killing you as a 25 year old. When you kill a man, you don't just kill him, but his future children as well. Murder is murder, it doesn't matter who the victim or the assailant are.

There's no such thing as a moral war. Lets admit what were doing, and finish it already.

[RedSkunk]

I was using the children thing to illustrate how 'enemy forces' in Iraq can't (or shouldn't) simply be demonized. Many of those serving were not supporters of Hussien. Did they deserve a death like that? Simply for being unlucky citizens in Iraq?

We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. James Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war. "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," he added.
[source]

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 4/3/04 11:33 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/3/04 11:21 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: You're trying to put the military using napalm in a bombing at the same moral ground as a mob burning humanitarian aid workers, and it's just not gonna wash.

It's not? I say it is. Who knows how many people we burned alive while using this substance? At least they had the courtesy to shoot the four civilians before burning them.

You're right, who knows! Your source only can only cite one instance of the use of napalm in the Iraq war. Your source states that it was dropped on military targets. You tangentially relate that there were conscripts and children in the army. Your argument is non sequitur. We dropped napalm on the Iraq army. There are children in the Iraqi army. However, it does not follow that we dropped napalm on children.

You do not know, nor can you consisively prove, that children in Iraq were hit by napalm bombs.

The premise of not shooting or attacking children is based on that child's innocence and vulnerability. Once that mantra is removed, and that child is in a position to kill Americans, he is no longer afforded the moral immunity that protects him.

Why is it okay to bemoan and be outrage at the loss of a civilian life that was unintentionally caused, but it is all right that a civilian can be brutally murdered.

[JoS]

Im sure alot of them dont actually even shoot, alot probally surrender, even to news crews.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 4/3/04 11:55 PM, RoteStinktier wrote: Many of those serving were not supporters of Hussien. Did they deserve a death like that? Simply for being unlucky citizens in Iraq?

There's a price to pay for freedom. I know that many did not want to serve Saddam. And no, they did not deserve to die. But there is a price for freedom.
We lost a great many a person fighting for freedom. We've lost civilians, we've lost soldiers. Other countries have fought for freedom, other countries have lost civilians and soldiers. In an ideal world, we could precisely take out the enemy with no civilians, no G.I. Joe's being killed. Heck, in an ideal world, there wouldn't be a need for war. But it isn't an ideal world. We're human. We're innacurate.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/4/04 12:04 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Your source only can only cite one instance of the use of napalm in the Iraq war.

I've already supplied two sources which have named at least three times that we've used these napalm-esque bombs in this latest war. One of my sources also describes their use in the first Gulf War.

Your source states that it was dropped on military targets. Your argument is non sequitur. You do not know, nor can you consisively prove, that children in Iraq were hit by napalm bombs.

I was using the children thing to illustrate how 'enemy forces' in Iraq can't (or shouldn't) simply be demonized.

My point was that the Iraqi army was not full of 'bloodthirsty savages' or whatever people tell themselves so they can sleep at night. It was full of conscripts who didn't want to fight for a dictator that they did not support.

Remember the surrendering and the dissertion?

Why is it okay to bemoan and be outrage at the loss of a civilian life that was unintentionally caused, but it is all right that a civilian can be brutally murdered.

I'm not sure when or where I said that it is all right for a civilian to be brutally murdered. In case you didn't notice, I'm not even for the death penalty.

[Jimsween]

At 4/3/04 11:46 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/3/04 11:39 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Have you ever been shot?

Have you ever been covered in napalm?

No but I've had 3rd degree burns on my feet, and it hurts, but it isn't worse than a puncture in your chest by a longshot. And usually when people get Napalmed they die pretty quick, getting shot is another story.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/4/04 12:12 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Heck, in an ideal world, there wouldn't be a need for war. But it isn't an ideal world. We're human. We're innacurate.

So.. This isn't an ideal world, so we shouldn't even try to minimize the impact of our wars of aggression? The world might not be ideal, but surely we could stop dropping fiery death from above.

[JoS]

Try 3rd degree burns to 90% of your body then lets see which hurts more, you'll be screaming for someone to shoot you when your flesh and muscle are burning of your now blacked and charred bones.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/4/04 12:14 AM, ineffable_fetus wrote: No but I've had 3rd degree burns on my feet, and it hurts, but it isn't worse than a puncture in your chest by a longshot. And usually when people get Napalmed they die pretty quick, getting shot is another story.

Burning napalm sticks to the skin and the clothes and causes severe and violent burns. The temperature is very high and the lasts for a long time, which makes napalm a very lethal weapon.
...
The victims of napalm can be divided into four basic classes. Some are completely burned and die immediately of the heat. 35 percent of the people in the proximity of the site of napalm explosion die within half an hour. Of the survivors, 50-55 percent die within 40 days of shock, poisoning, or different complications. The survivors, 10-15 percent, require significant medical attention.
[source]

"Within 40 days" isn't quite as quick as I would like, if I had happened to be doused in the stuff.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 4/4/04 12:17 AM, RoteStinktier wrote:

So.. This isn't an ideal world, so we shouldn't even try to minimize the impact of our wars of aggression? The world might not be ideal, but surely we could stop dropping fiery death from above.

Hey, I don't have a problem with not using napalm.

[IllustriousPotentate]

And what does it matter which is more painful?

If we were arguing about methods of excuting criminals, then it might be relevant.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/4/04 12:29 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: And what does it matter which is more painful?
If we were arguing about methods of excuting criminals, then it might be relevant.

Why do you say that? American criminals deserve an easier death than some john who got conscripted in Iraq? Aren't they both humans, after all?

[imgone]

Whats wrong with naplam anyway? Its no more horrific if you get mutilated and burned by a regular bomb.

[IllustriousPotentate]

No, they don't even deserve to die. But in wars, people have to. But the attacker has no obligation to kill without "cruel and unusual" punishment. Any way you look at it, it's all the same result, death. And the dead feel no pain.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/4/04 12:43 AM, Cinghiale wrote: Whats wrong with naplam anyway? Its no more horrific if you get mutilated and burned by a regular bomb.

No, it is more horrific.

At 4/4/04 12:44 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: But the attacker has no obligation to kill without "cruel and unusual" punishment. Any way you look at it, it's all the same result, death. And the dead feel no pain.

I believe that if we're going to kill people, we should do it in the most painless way possible. See, I have empathy for the entire human race, not just those who happen to be born in the same country as I.

[JoS]

Why dont we bring back mustard gas into widespread use again.

[imgone]

At 4/4/04 12:48 AM, RoteStinktier wrote: No, it is more horrific.

Would you mind clairfying how being scalded by a superheated chemical is worse than being serated and scroched by conventional heat and shrapnel, because they really do seem to equal the same agonizing pain and death in the end.