US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

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.

In Geneva, Protocol III (Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is adopted on October 10, 1980, making it illegal to use incendiary weapons on civilian populations and restricting the use of these weapons against military targets that are located within a concentration of civilians. Such weapons are considered "to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects." 51 countries initially sign the document and on December 2, 1983, its provisions are entered into force. By the end of 2004, 104 countries sign and 97 ratify the protocol. The US is not a party to this protocol and continues to use incendiary weapons in all its major conflicts. It is the only country to do so.

oralloy wrote:

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.

That's not quite true. Others have chosen not to use napalm at all. That is, every other country except for the United States:

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

This is not true.

But in April, 2001, the last USA napalm was destroyed officially in a final ceremony San Diego - six years after the Navy began talking it.

However the United States has not signed this convention, and it therefore has no force whatever with respect to us under international law. 51 countries is not the whole world, and, since India, China, and Indonesia are not signatories, the 51 probably represent fewer than 30% of the world's people.

The Brave (and tidy) New World Europeans apparently seek was fairly well described (in what now seems quaint terms) by George Orwell. It is an illusion, albeit perhaps a comforting one to the ageing and comfortable populations of Western Europe. However, notwithstanding these illusions, the world remains a competitive place, full of challenge and competition - some of it unfair.. The EU cannot protect the nations of continental Europe from external challengs and competition. Merely speaking and walking quietly will not keep competitors at bay.

The Pentagon destroyed its stockpile of napalm, which had been stored near Camp Pendleton at the Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station, in a ceremony in April 2001.

But as your post, again, has deteriorated into another rant against continental Europa I may ask you a specific question on topic: In what sense would the use of napalm and phosphor bombs be helpful for European countries in order to keep competitors at bay?

old europe wrote:

But as your post, again, has deteriorated into another rant against continental Europa I may ask you a specific question on topic: In what sense would the use of napalm and phosphor bombs be helpful for European countries in order to keep competitors at bay?

Not my problem or decision. The nations of Europe must (and do) make these choices for themselves. I have made no criticism of any of them whatever on this point.

These are weapons of war. The object of war is victory. Victory occurs when the enemy gives up hope. In a war not fighting or resisting can be a worse moral act than striking hard. I recall that some of the worst massacres in Bosnia, done by the Serbian paramilitary forces, were done in the presence of European military forces which, in accord with their national orders, did nothing at all to stop them.

Is a "rant against continental Europe" any worse than a "rant against the United States"? That, after all is the essential topic of this (and many other) threads here. I perceive a rather extraordinary degree of hypocrisy and forgetfulness of their own awful histories among the many European posters here who create and populate whole threads devoted to the bashing of the United States. It is certainly their right to do this, but it is odd to note the different standards they apply to themselves and others - and their indignation when confronted with a taste of their own medicine.

Not my problem or decision. The nations of Europe must (and do) make these choices for themselves. I have made no criticism of any of them whatever on this point.

These are weapons of war. The object of war is victory. Victory occurs when the enemy gives up hope. In a war not fighting or resisting can be a worse moral act than striking hard. I recall that some of the worst massacres in Bosnia, done by the Serbian paramilitary forces, were done in the presence of European military forces which, in accord with their national orders, did nothing at all to stop them.

Is a "rant against continental Europe" any worse than a "rant against the United States"? That, after all is the essential topic of this (and many other) threads here. I perceive a rather extraordinary degree of hypocrisy and forgetfulness of their own awful histories among the many European posters here who create and populate whole threads devoted to the bashing of the United States.

It is certainly their right to do this, but it is odd to note the different standards they apply to themselves and others - and their indignation when confronted with a taste of their own medicine.

Well, you implied they were on a way to an Orwellian society.

Maybe you could point out to me were I have been bashing the United States on this thread...?

And, by the way: has it never occured to you that people might be concerned about certain issues not in spite of their own awful histories, but because of their own awful histories?

georgeob1 wrote:

It is certainly their right to do this, but it is odd to note the different standards they apply to themselves and others - and their indignation when confronted with a taste of their own medicine.

Unother unsubstantiated accusation. Go ahead.