US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

HofT, I don't understand the logic of your use of US bombs to kill innocent Iraqis and the birth/death rate in Africa.

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

Cicerone - it is not so.

Anyone who has studied African statistics, for instance, knows that 2 out of every 10 children die shortly after birth. This sounds terrifying until you realize the really terrifying statistic lies hidden behind that number - to wit:

ALL THOSE 10 CHILDREN ARE BORN TO ONE SINGLE WOMAN.

There's no need to expand, I hope, but just in case: within 25 years, if all children live, that's 100 people, within 50 years that's one thousand - AND THE ORIGINAL MOTHER ALREADY LIVES ON FOOD AID.

Sure, forgive the debt, it's uncollectable - but WHAT HAPPENED TO our $200 BILLION we sent over already?!

Unless this question can be answered not a single cent should be sent over to Africa except in the form of family planning - all their other problems derive from this one. To see this notice how China managed to enforce its "one child" policy for a quarter century - and THEN saw economic growth; until then the "drought, famine, pestilence, war" model will be allowed to ravage that continent.

Where are these stats that show us that every woman in Africa has had 10 children and only 8 of them have lived? Then where are the stats that show all these women are on Food aid?

You do know that a single woman is NOT a stat don't you?

I really loved this one Helen. It made my day to read it.

What did happen to this $200 billion we sent? I can't find any record of the US EVER sending $200 Billion.. According to US State dept the US only contributed $929 MILLION in to world food programs in 2002 and that was over 50% of the UN World Food Program for that year. At $1 billion a year the US would have had to be sending food aid to Africa for 200 years to make your numbers. The only figure I have found so far for 2004FY was 1.2 billion in Food Aid to Sub Saharan Africa. Where is this $200 billion HoT? You raised the question HoT.. I can only ask where the heck did you get your outlandish number?

http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2003/Sep/23-802270.html

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Too bad Bushites fails to see the hypocrisy of "every life is precious."

You convince the homocide bombers first. Once you have gotten all of them to stop killing, I will start work on the "Bushites".

America:

Not half as bad as the terrorists!

Not so great a claim to fame is it? Seems what we are stuck with after Gitmo, Abu Garib and a war as popular as a turn in a punchbowl.

TTF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Too bad Bushites fails to see the hypocrisy of "every life is precious."

You convince the homocide bombers first. Once you have gotten all of them to stop killing, I will start work on the "Bushites".

America:

Not half as bad as the terrorists!

Not so great a claim to fame is it? Seems what we are stuck with after Gitmo, Abu Garib and a war as popular as a turn in a punchbowl.

TTF

If there were no terrorists, we would not be at war. It's a vicious circle that begins and ends with the terrorist and those that support them.

I think the claim to fame is more like "Have terrorists? We'll kill them."

BTW: War is not a popularity contest and I know of no one that enjoys it.

0 Replies

There are terrorists in places other than Iraq, but most of them are in Africa.

0 Replies

Yes, and the liberals wish to send them more money.

0 Replies

You got that wrong. It's George Bush talking about sending some $2 billion dollars to Africa.

"The pastors' letter noted that the Bush administration had tripled U.S. aid to Africa but said the effort "pales in contrast" with the billions of dollars devoted to tax cuts and to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush's leadership."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

You got that wrong. It's George Bush talking about sending some $2 billion dollars to Africa.

"The pastors' letter noted that the Bush administration had tripled U.S. aid to Africa but said the effort "pales in contrast" with the billions of dollars devoted to tax cuts and to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush's leadership."

Remind me again here C.I., how many conservatives helped sponsor the "Live 8" concert?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Remind me again here C.I., how many conservatives helped sponsor the "Live 8" concert?

You mean exactly which of the concerts? The two in the UK or those in Philadelphia, Berlin, Paris and Rome or all?

0 Replies

All would be Volvo (of North America Inc), Nokia and AOL only.

0 Replies

Mc G:

I think you continue (I am not saying you are alone) to use Conservative and Liberal as monikers that essentially mean nothing.

I can be a racist nazi and call myself conservative and a dope smoking communist and call myself liberal. These monikers mean nothing.

I try to stay specific to a policy and policy maker - I am certianly not perfect, but all this talk about liberal media and coservative war mongering seems so damned counter productive.

TTF

0 Replies

Yeah,

Let's damn the war mongering media and counter the productive conservatives instead

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

The capt quoted above and yourself in the 'nobodys business' post above treat human life so flippantly and war with so much hubris that in the final analysis I think you will be forced to see its folly.

I'm not sure what folly, flippancy, or hubris you are talking about.

My point was simply that it didn't matter in the first place whether we used napalm. I'm not saying it should be a secret, but it also isn't a big deal worth making a fuss over either. I don't see why we were being asked about it in the first place.

Maybe I shouldn't have put in that first paragraph I quoted from the Fallujah article. My intent was just to back up my statement that we had used white phosphorus there.

0 Replies

orally, The reason the use of napalm in Iraq is important is because US signed an agreement not to use them any more.

0 Replies

Not to mention that one has to wonder why we would use defoliating weapons in a desert.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

orally, The reason the use of napalm in Iraq is important is because US signed an agreement not to use them any more.

I'm pretty sure you are mistaken on that.

As far as I know, there is no agreement in existence where people pledge not to use napalm at all.

There is an agreement to only use napalm in certain circumstances, to avoid accidentally hitting civilians with it, but the US did not sign that agreement.

Despite our not signing the agreement, our use of napalm in Iraq was consistent with its rules for avoiding civilians.

Our use of white phosphorus in Fallujah is a little closer to the line, but it is possible that we were within the rules there as well (but regardless, those rules would only apply if we were a party to the protocol).

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Not to mention that one has to wonder why we would use defoliating weapons in a desert.

Napalm is an incendiary, not a defoliant.

Agent Orange was a defoliant.

We used napalm to set enemy soldiers on fire.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

thethinkfactory wrote:
The capt quoted above and yourself in the 'nobodys business' post above treat human life so flippantly and war with so much hubris that in the final analysis I think you will be forced to see its folly.

I'm not sure what folly, flippancy, or hubris you are talking about.

My point was simply that it didn't matter in the first place whether we used napalm. I'm not saying it should be a secret, but it also isn't a big deal worth making a fuss over either. I don't see why we were being asked about it in the first place.

Maybe I shouldn't have put in that first paragraph I quoted from the Fallujah article. My intent was just to back up my statement that we had used white phosphorus there.

What I was saying is this:

1) Killing is never cool. To treat it as a neat-o and death by napalm even more neat-o is flip, barbaric, childish, or most likely, grossly uninformed. If you had ever witnessed a napalm attack up close - or any of your friends / family had burned to death you probably would not be thinking it was so cool and an acceptable weapon. Either than or you are a sociopath.

2) To think that we, as a nation, have the right to use whatever horrible weapon we want becase we are America and they are bad guys is hubris filled. We limit our weapon use so that we do not have those weapons used on us. We argued for a 'just war' when we entered Iraq and you seem completely willing to adopt a 'by all means necessary' attitude. You cannot have that both ways. Either there is ethics, and burning people to death is (as we have previously decided in America) not ethical - or there is no ethics or justice to war. Perhaps that is a false delimma in the end analysis - but it seems contrary to me to state one and not the other.

3) Not making a fuss over the use of an outdates uncivilized weapon can only mean you have no intention of having that weapon used on you. That is hubris. To think our temprorary military superiority will protect us from our atrocities is hubris and folly. The romans and greeks (to name just a few) thought the same things... and thier empires ended.

It can only be the same hubris that was warned about to them (going all the way back to Hesiod) that is causing us to say things like you have said above.

TTF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

What I was saying is this:

1) Killing is never cool. To treat it as a neat-o and death by napalm even more neat-o is flip, barbaric, childish, or most likely, grossly uninformed. If you had ever witnessed a napalm attack up close - or any of your friends / family had burned to death you probably would not be thinking it was so cool and an acceptable weapon. Either than or you are a sociopath.

I don't recall using the terms "cool" or "neat-o".

Napalm is an acceptable weapon though.

thethinkfactory wrote:

2) To think that we, as a nation, have the right to use whatever horrible weapon we want becase we are America and they are bad guys is hubris filled.

So long as wee stay within the bounds of international law, we do have that right.

thethinkfactory wrote:

We limit our weapon use so that we do not have those weapons used on us.

We only limit weapons via international law.

We have never chosen to limit napalm under international law.

But when we used napalm in Iraq, we constrained ourselves to the limitations others have chosen to place on napalm, even though it was not necessary for us to do so.

thethinkfactory wrote:

We argued for a 'just war' when we entered Iraq and you seem completely willing to adopt a 'by all means necessary' attitude. You cannot have that both ways.

I don't know that Iraq is a just war. Afghanistan is, though.

Since our use of weapons did not violate international law, that would not impact the question of whether these are just wars.

thethinkfactory wrote:

Either there is ethics, and burning people to death is (as we have previously decided in America) not ethical

I don't recall anyone ever deciding that the use of napalm against legitimate targets is unethical.

thethinkfactory wrote:

3) Not making a fuss over the use of an outdates uncivilized weapon can only mean you have no intention of having that weapon used on you.

I am not sure how a weapon would qualify as civilized, but napalm is a modern weapon -- hardly outdated.

thethinkfactory wrote:

To think our temprorary military superiority will protect us from our atrocities is hubris and folly. The romans and greeks (to name just a few) thought the same things... and thier empires ended.

Our military superiority should last for some centuries.

What atrocities? Abu Ghraib??

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

...2) To think that we, as a nation, have the right to use whatever horrible weapon we want becase [sic] we are America and they are bad guys is hubris filled....

What is it to:

1. Capture civilians for blackmail and then saw their living heads off as they scream in agony?
2. Execute potential hostages?
3. Bomb randomly in areas frequented by civilians?

I await your expected inappropriate response that you don't care if the enemy poisons children's milk and dynamites orphanages, as long as your country behaves properly. You strike me as the kind of guy who would criticize American soldiers for not Mirandizing terrorists as they stop them from executing your neighbors.

0 Replies

US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know