0
   

Pentagon admits U.S. used Napalm on Iraqi troops

 
 
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2003 09:34 pm
Quote:
US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
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.'"

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.

The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war.

"Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon," said Robert Musil, director of the organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility. "It takes up an awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds." Mr Musil said denial of its use "fits a pattern of deception [by the US administration]".

The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.

Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their use would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted they were "remarkably similar" to napalm but said they caused less environmental damage.

But John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it." Marines returning from Iraq chose to call the firebombs "napalm".

Mr Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the weapons was outrageous. He said: "It's Orwellian. They do not want the public to know. It's a lie."

In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in the war.
10 August 2003 20:16






  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,813 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2003 09:46 pm
RUMSFELD Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2003 09:49 pm
It just keeps getting worse.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2003 09:50 pm
I disagree with the contention that napalm's "psychological" advantages are advantages at all. The nuancing of the admission of the use is a clear indication of the negative psychological impact that the use of napalm has on war weariness and the like.

It seems some generals can't help but advocate the use of their exotic toys.

ANY weapons can be "justified" this way.

"You know, we don't like the idea of using chemical weapons against American targets but we were given no choice. We told them to surrender and since they didn't we needed to use a weapon that had "psychological" effect."

I have already seen some hawks advocating the use of the so called "Arab busters", the "mini nukes" touting their psychological utility.

I really wish these people would have the balls to tell it like it is. They like using exotic weapons.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2003 10:06 pm
Don't forget about all those television news stories during the first few nights where it was reported that Iraqi troops had dug trenches, filled them with oil and set them afire to defend the city.

I wonder if what was seen was actually the pools of napalm burning troops in their trenches.

Soooo, does the use of napalm bombs mean the US used chemical weapons against the Iraqi's? They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel. [/i] Sure sounds like a chemical recipe to me, one that was intentionally formulated to do the most horrendous damage in a widespread area for little or no cost.

When I was a kid I remember going camping with the family, sitting around the campfire and my brother and I roasting marshmellows using tree branches as the skewers. Some burning tree sap dropped onto the ring finger of my right hand and instantly burned me to the bone. It was one of the most painful events of my life. Looking at the dime-sized cratered scar on my finger, I can only imagine the torture the recipients of the napalm bombs went through before they found relief in death.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2003 10:11 pm
When will we ever learn.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2003 10:16 pm
Napalm sucks. What more can one say?
0 Replies
 
CodeBorg
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2003 10:59 pm
"A psychological effect", aka terrorism.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2003 12:02 am
Sigh - it seems odd to find some weapons more horriffic than others - but this stuff is disgusting . What does the US military think to gain by lying about this sort of thing?

Yes, Bfly, when is something chemical and not chemical? Explosives are chemically created - bullets use chemical reactions to impel them - seems chemicals weapons are defined to be gas and the other part of the definition is "as used by other, bad countries - never as used by us".
0 Replies
 
gravy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2003 12:32 am
Butrflynet, dlowan: While it hardly reduces the horror of Napalm (sorry, Mark 77), the definitions seem to point to them not being chemical weapons, which are narrowly defined:

The chemical weapon Convention says chemical weapons contain "toxic chemicals" which it defines as:
Quote:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals
.
http://www.cwc.gov/treaty/articles/art-02_html

Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons documents state the following:
Quote:
Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy.

http://www.opcw.org/resp/html/cwagents.html


So for the purposes of labeling our human-killing devices, these remain thermal and not chemical (the chemicals react with each other and not with their victims directly)….

That said, I find it appalling to live in a world where we are awash in "no great way to die" situations. Also, the fact that "the generals love napalm" is revolting, but "understandable" once you reduce humans to red dots on a computer screen, and carnage to "psychological advantage".

Every so often we get a glimpse of inventive devices our dollars (and pounds, and …) are spent on, e.g. Daisy cutters, Moabs….

Today we read that $3.6M is budgetted for 1000 more of these Mark77s, these lovable devices that combine "a mixture of jet fuel and a gelling compound" and in an environmentally friendly way, "the particles of thickener absorb the fuel, expanding until the entire mass is a homogeneous gel as to slow the burning, improve clinging properties, and cause the fuel to rebound off walls and go around corners."
(Ref: www.chemistry.usna.edu/navapps/PDF/Chemical%20Warfare_v2.pdf )

I'll have to go ask my retired grandfather to explain if all generals love napalms, when they drop them on humans, is it the slow burning, the going around the corners, the clinging? He ought to let me know how can anybody love something this abhorrent

(note: I edited in some references for your perusal)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2003 12:41 am
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning."
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2003 01:08 am
The US seems bound and determine that the rules of war apply to everyone but themselves. Napalm, depleted uranium shells, etc...Perhaps it's time for me to start packing for Toronto.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2003 01:46 am
Quote:
The chemical weapon Convention says chemical weapons contain "toxic chemicals" which it defines as:
Quote:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals


I don't know about you, but I'd say that a burning gel designed to adhere to the skin while the victim burns to death is a chemical action on life processes.

Want to test it? Go buy a Big Mac then take the styrafoam container it came in and break it into pieces before feeding into your food processor and grind it to bits. Mix with a cup of kerosene then set it on fire and toss it onto something.

Let me know if what you see and smell would be considered a toxic chemical action on life processes.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2003 01:00 pm
Conspiracy radio has been hammering a story lately which I've only half listened to and can only report half-way!

There have been many cases of what appeared to be pneumonia among troops in Iraq. It closely resembles the effect of anthrax on the lungs. Several members of the military in Iraq have reported (in a blog and in letters home) that the US is importing anthrax into Iraq via Baghdad Airport in containers which these guys have helped to unload.

That's all I can tell you. If you're interested, I'll see what else I can pick up... whether it sounds verifiable.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2003 01:02 pm
I can verify that the US is, indeed, looking into pneumonia-like symptoms that the troops have suffered.

The part about the US importing anthrax is completely new to me and I doubt its veracity.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2003 01:05 pm
Here's the report it may be based on???

http://content.gannettonline.com/gns/iraq/20030805-27545.shtml

(When I read the story, I'm reminded that the original story they were talking about was Jonathan Neusche (sp?), a soldier who died of pneumonia but whose father believes/can prove? that anthrax was the cause. Something like that...)
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2003 01:09 pm
Here's Google's list of recent news on the subject of anthrax/pneumonia: http://news.google.com/news?q=anthrax+in+Iraq+pneumonia&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&edition=us&scoring=d
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2003 01:12 pm
But that story is specific in that anthrax is not a cause.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2003 04:04 pm
Says who?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2003 04:11 pm
Col. Robert DeFraites.

That's actually a good thing for your political camp. If there were traces of anthrax people would be trying to say it validated the notion that Saddam had deployable anthrax and that he either used them or that the troops inadvertently came into contact with them.

Troops from various positions ahve reported these symptoms so the story about the US shipping anthrax would not have been believed by many.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Pentagon admits U.S. used Napalm on Iraqi troops
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/14/2024 at 04:06:37