US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

woiyo wrote:

What problem do you have with the words "USED AGAINST MILITARY TARGETS"???

Read the subject of the thread. If you want to discuss military vs civilian go start a different thread. The issue is that the US military DENIED the use when in fact it had used napalm.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Acq, Your analogy with the bulldozer driver stinks. parados has it closer to the reality of how munitions are used in warfare. If the US had directives not to use napalm, they wouldn't be available in Iraq.

This raises two interesting questions. What does an American expeditionary force take with it in terms of munitions, what is available? Also, at what level of command is the decision to use a munition made? It is my understanding that in the American army field commanders are given great deal of discretion in this matter.

0 Replies

"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."

If you want to debate facts, read the link you posted. Where is it claimed that the US used napalm against civilian targets?

The US agreed NOT to use them against civilian targets. FACT.

Where is the lie??

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

"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."

If you want to debate facts, read the link you posted. Where is it claimed that the US used napalm against civilian targets?

The US agreed NOT to use them against civilian targets. FACT.

Where is the lie??

Quote:

"The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."

"Not used at any time" vs your "only used against military targets". I see a lie there.

Quote:

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.

Again, I see a huge untruth. The only difference between the MK77 and napalm is the use of kerosene instead of gasoline as the incendiary.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

parados wrote:
woiyo wrote:
"Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used against military targets "away from civilian targets", he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets"

According to the article, they were used against military targets. What's your problem???

Maybe we should use rubber bullets???? No..better yet, let's use feathers.

The problem is that the govt LIED about its use. It is part of an ongoing pattern. When asked if used, the military very specifically DENIED it was ever used.

What problem do you have with the words "USED AGAINST MILITARY TARGETS"???

What's so scary is that you have no problem with the word "lie". It's second, no first nature with you wingnuts. If this was such a great thing, we would have seen it splashed all over American TV.

The military would be trumpeting this great weapon and gunga would be trying to locate a US source so he could go hunting; killed and cooked on the spot.

They lied, SC Woiyo, they lied because it was and is a horrible weapon that has no place among civilized people.

They lied to coalition partners, "but hey no big deal, says Woiyo, they lie to me all the time and I have no problem with that so what are the Brits whining about?"

0 Replies

Just out of curiosity, why hasn't this story been picked up by any major news outlet? It seems to be quite popular amongst the liberal bloggers, but not really so much with actual news sources.

I googled Adam Ingram +mk77 and can find nothing from any major news source.

What's the deal?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Just out of curiosity, why hasn't this story been picked up by any major news outlet? It seems to be quite popular amongst the liberal bloggers, but not really so much with actual news sources.

I googled Adam Ingram +mk77 and can find nothing from any major news source.

What's the deal?

Do you consider

The Daily Mirror a major news source?

0 Replies

The absolute FACT is that the report confirmed that 100% of the weaponry was not account for. It is a FACT that Saddam had intentions of rebuilding stockpiles.

The liberal minority seems to be a very trusting bunch who would insist we BELIEVE Saddam (who touted the fqact he HAD weaponry).

When ONE person, Mr. Ingrahm, states the US lied about the use of weaponry, to which we NEVER agreed not to use, you go off as if the US is enemy and OUR troops are the villians.

I do not agree with the way GW is handeling this current situation is Iraq, but THANK GOD he had the foresight and guts to eliminate the threat that the liberals avoided for 8 years.

0 Replies

woiyo, YOu continue to insiste we trusted Saddam. Why do you think we had UN inspectors in Iraq? Can't you put two and two together? Or is that too difficult for you?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why hasn't this story been picked up by any major news outlet? It seems to be quite popular amongst the liberal bloggers, but not really so much with actual news sources.

I googled Adam Ingram +mk77 and can find nothing from any major news source.

What's the deal?

Do you consider

The Daily Mirror a major news source?

Not anymore. Did you read that story? It's an opinion peice.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

The absolute FACT is that the report confirmed that 100% of the weaponry was not account for. It is a FACT that Saddam had intentions of rebuilding stockpiles.

The liberal minority seems to be a very trusting bunch who would insist we BELIEVE Saddam (who touted the fqact he HAD weaponry).

When ONE person, Mr. Ingrahm, states the US lied about the use of weaponry, to which we NEVER agreed not to use, you go off as if the US is enemy and OUR troops are the villians.

I do not agree with the way GW is handeling this current situation is Iraq, but THANK GOD he had the foresight and guts to eliminate the threat that the liberals avoided for 8 years.

This was not "one person". Squinney posted a story that quotes military spokesmen speaking to the press at a press conference. I don't consider a room full of reporters to be "one person." The fact is that they lied to the press AND to the British govt. And the fact that the lies have been found out and the truth revealed says it all. It is not speculation of whether they did or didn't use MK77s. It has been admitted.

Saddam wasn't a nice man. I never said he was. Your statements however are not factual. You claimed he HAD substantial WMD in 2003. (Now you seem to be claimng Saddam bragged about having those weapons in 2003. A point I don't know of any evidence to back up.) When you can provide any evidence of that then I will apply the same standard to Saddam that I do to the military. If the military had not later come forward and admitted that they did use MK77s after first denying it then they wouldn't be in the position they are.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

woiyo, YOu continue to insiste we trusted Saddam. Why do you think we had UN inspectors in Iraq? Can't you put two and two together? Or is that too difficult for you?

According to the posts by PArados, he insisted that Saddam should be trusted.

WE (I presume you mean the US) did NOT have UN Inspectors. the UN had the inspectors in their.

Do you have anything else that may be of value to share with us besides your silly commentary?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
woiyo, YOu continue to insiste we trusted Saddam. Why do you think we had UN inspectors in Iraq? Can't you put two and two together? Or is that too difficult for you?

According to the posts by PArados, he insisted that Saddam should be trusted.

WE (I presume you mean the US) did NOT have UN Inspectors. the UN had the inspectors in their.

Do you have anything else that may be of value to share with us besides your silly commentary?

Is the U.S. no longer a part of the UN?

0 Replies

When did we disengage from the UN? That's news to "all" of us. What year and month was that?

0 Replies

Heck, we're arguing with somebody that has no reality; it's hopeless.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Just out of curiosity, why hasn't this story been picked up by any major news outlet? It seems to be quite popular amongst the liberal bloggers, but not really so much with actual news sources.

I googled Adam Ingram +mk77 and can find nothing from any major news source.

What's the deal?

Damn liberal media...

Could it be that if a report like this reached major outlets they would be accused of "attacking the troops"? This seems to be a pretty popular accusation of late.

0 Replies

This is the only administration that attacks messengers when they don't like the news. Everything else is "top secret."

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
woiyo, YOu continue to insiste we trusted Saddam. Why do you think we had UN inspectors in Iraq? Can't you put two and two together? Or is that too difficult for you?

According to the posts by PArados, he insisted that Saddam should be trusted.

WE (I presume you mean the US) did NOT have UN Inspectors. the UN had the inspectors in their.

Do you have anything else that may be of value to share with us besides your silly commentary?

Care to point out where I said Saddam could be trusted? Now you are just being silly because your argument has broken down logically on another thread. So you drag your argument here to attack me rather than respond there. I will respond to this post on that thread.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

When did we disengage from the UN? That's news to "all" of us. What year and month was that?

We are sending Bolton - Consider it a preemptive strike to remove ourselves from a 'quaint arm of the American military' that Bolton thinks they are anyway.

TTF

0 Replies

Bolton = another right-wing cowboy.

0 Replies

US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know