I read the article. It says the Pentagon has essentially confirmed the claims of the use of Napalm... yet I see no sources. I see no links or quotes from Pentagon officials backing the claim up.

The insurgents are killing innocent Iraqis every day, not that R.H. cares. That isn't of interest, since it can't be put up as a reason to hate the US. R.H. needs all these reasons, true or not, since it makes the irrational hate seem more rational.

Hey, why don't we just put all the Iraqis in a huge concentration camp, and before we gas them to death we can build them swimming pools. Then at least the revisionist weirdos of the future, like R.H., will poo-poo our current detractors... like R.H., and claim we were just being nice to the Iraqis.

Frankly, if we ever agreed not to use napalm it was a mistake. Napalm isn't a WMD, as R.H. would have MOST CERTAINLY told you if we had found that Hussein had some and used it as an excuse to attack.

Yet another unsupportable claim made by RH.

I have a conspiracy theory for you RH. Why do you believe there were no WMD's found in Iraq? IEDs have been found all over the place. Isn't a bomb a weapon? Doesn't it cause large amounts of destruction?

As for the terrorist...

The US said it wouldn't deal with terrorist in hostage situations. That has always been the policy.

The article calls the way we are fight the war "an adhoc manner". They also criticized the release of certain information while keeping other secret. I think there is strategy in confusion. If we make them think the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, surely it is going to provide them with a false sense of security. Confusion is the best diversion.

I have a conspiracy theory for you RH. Why do you believe there were no WMD's found in Iraq? IEDs have been found all over the place. Isn't a bomb a weapon? Doesn't it cause large amounts of destruction

I can't quite work out if you're being serious or not with that quote. I will give you the benfit of the doubt and assume you were being sarcastic

Like I say, if we had found a supertanker full of Napalm, do you think R.H. would have admitted Hussein had WMDs? Hardly. They'd have been ordinary weapons and the Bush administration would have been accused of spouting lies.

As long as the fearmongering is on the right side, it's all good, I guess.

I can't quite work out if you're being serious or not with that quote. I will give you the benfit of the doubt and assume you were being sarcastic

Just trying to fit in with RH. After all, the truth isn't the truth until you put a spin on it. Right?

*YAWN* just another hate america and all things american post from someone that KNOWS HOW to do hate. *double eyeroll*

Hey RH show me just where you got the idea that napalm is a WMD?

Before you silly chickenhawks spew words that are much less than the truth you ought to check things out beforehand.
Colonel Mike Daily, of the US Marine Corps.

"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".
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145870882.html?oneclick=true

Pentagon official good enough for you hopeless ones? I assume you shall all move the yardsticks to suit.
Nice Try
Napalm being used in violation of international laws formulated by the US is indeed use of illegal weapons and deserve to be treated as such. You can knitpick and say it's not mass destruction they employ. You can have that certainly. But don't think deflection will erase the reality and truisms. The US signed on to the 1980 weapons accord, and they have and are breaking that agreement. Hypocritically too. I thought illegal use of illegal weapons was a reason the US had to invade Iraq. And here they are doing what even Iraq wasn't doing. Using illegal and banned weapons.
And the *yawn You Hate the US* bit is mundane and even illogical. Why do you turn pussy and play the persecuted crybaby? You turn the US's illegal use of illegal weapons as your forum for the persecuted American? Sorry but you're really sick in the head. Please comment on the facts and not waaaa you just hate us tripe.

Reiki's original link http://www.dissidentvoice.org/June05/Whitney0627.htm takes us to a second-hand account of this story.

What the original story referenced by Reiki's link says is, the U.S. used MK-77 bombs, a modern form of Napalm. Let me quote the key part of the original story:

". . . 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', [UK defense minister Adam Ingram] said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets. Britain, which has no stockpiles of the weapons, ratified the convention, but the US did not."

The story also says that the U.S. has confirmed that it used the weapon in the manner described, but that originally it had denied using the weapon at all. But don't let that distract you from the key points of the passage I quoted:

1. The use of Napalm is allowed by current treaties.
2. Napalm is considered a conventional weapon, not a "weapon of mass destruction"[1]
3. The U.S., having not signed the 1980 Convention on CCW, is not under any treaty obligation to never use Napalm. Even if it had signed the treaty, it still would have been permitted to use Napalm in the manner described in the original article.

Neither Reiki's secondhand link nor the original story provide any evidence to back up allegations that Napalm was used except in accordance with the current commonly-accepted practices for using Napalm--practices which the U.S. hasn't even signed on to, but is following anyway.

So the only reason for the rest of the world to get upset about the U.S.'s use of a conventional weapon in a reasonable way, is if some people try to spin it as a horrible war crime--which it is not.

So, um... shame on you, Reiki, for inciting hatred based on lies, ignorance, hearsay, and innuendo. Isn't this kind of uninformed, ill-considered, baseless stereotyping against everything you believe in? For shame!

---

[1] "Weapon of Mass Destruction is really just pop-culture-friendly shorthand for the classic "big three" of modern warfare: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons ("NBC" to those of you who have been through Basic Training). H-bombs, Anthrax, and Nerve Gas are WMDs. According to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Napalm is a conventional weapon. Which would explain why modern treaties allow its use.

This is insane. There are thousands of swimming pools in Iraq. Untold numbers of theaters. They have it a hundred times better than the Jews of the Holocaust, and according to R.H. Holocaust Jews were living high on the hog swimming and putting on shows.

The problem we have here, I think, is that we assume R.H. is up in arms about the Iraq war. I think the real source of bitterness toward the US is all our zionist plots and our historical intolerance to the great Aryan race. Arabs are strange allies for der Uberdolts, but hey, try and try again.

Reiki's original link Link takes us to a second-hand account of this story. What the original story referenced by Reiki's link says is, the U.S. used MK-77 bombs, a modern form of Napalm. Let me quote the key part of the original story: ". . . 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', [UK defense minister Adam Ingram] said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets. Britain, which has no stockpiles of the weapons, ratified the convention, but the US did not." The story also says that the U.S. has confirmed that it used the weapon in the manner described, but that originally it had denied using the weapon at all. But don't let that distract you from the key points of the passage I quoted: 1. The use of Napalm is allowed by current treaties. 2. Napalm is considered a conventional weapon, not a "weapon of mass destruction"[1] 3. The U.S., having not signed the 1980 Convention on CCW, is not under any treaty obligation to never use Napalm. Even if it had signed the treaty, it still would have been permitted to use Napalm in the manner described in the original article. Neither Reiki's secondhand link nor the original story provide any evidence to back up allegations that Napalm was used except in accordance with the current commonly-accepted practices for using Napalm--practices which the U.S. hasn't even signed on to, but is following anyway. So the only reason for the rest of the world to get upset about the U.S.'s use of a conventional weapon in a reasonable way, is if some people try to spin it as a horrible war crime--which it is not. So, um... shame on you, Reiki, for inciting hatred based on lies, ignorance, hearsay, and innuendo. Isn't this kind of uninformed, ill-considered, baseless stereotyping against everything you believe in? For shame! [1] "Weapon of Mass Destruction is really just pop-culture-friendly shorthand for the classic "big three" of modern warfare: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons ("NBC" to those of you who have been through Basic Training). H-bombs, Anthrax, and Nerve Gas are WMDs. According to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Napalm is a conventional weapon. Which would explain why modern treaties allow its use.

So basically what your saying is that Reiki does NOT have goddamn clue. You know I'd offer to buy one for him but he'd "still" be clueless! Ok Reiki......"refute" these claims.

Hmm. I hope your kids aren't as dumb as you all seem. The US signs on to an accord which prohibits the use of napalm. The US creates another napalm bomb and changes its name. The US drops napalm on civilians, I say it's illegal and in violation of international laws the US signed on to. Then I'm clueless? I have to wonder if it's simply your knowledge that I'm wholly right on this issue. And you know it's easy to see? Because the way you losers start with the usual drone typical insults over things that really aren't true. It's a deflection move and you all use it here constantly. If I had my way, the US wouldn't be using illegal and banned weapons they claim to rid the world of. If it were up to me, the US wouldn't have killed little babies and women and entire families in Iraq over what makes you pussyhawks orgasm. Human life is kind of precious to me and it would be nice if it were to you all as well. Instead of getting yourself 'owned' maybe focus on the actual facts and skip the childish insults which only make it clear you're all on the ropes. But myself, if I'm ever wrong, I can admit it. If I say something incorrect, I don't mind being corrected. It's because I have a higher mindset that you guys. I do something none of you can do. Learn from your mistakes.

" Hmm. I hope your kids aren't as dumb as you all seem."

At least we can read... Go back and read stutefish's reply #10.

The US signs on to an accord which prohibits the use of napalm.

Against civilians. I know YOU prefer to think of people who set roadside bombs and behead people civilians, or freedom fighters, but most of us consider them the official enemy.

"If I say something incorrect, I don't mind being corrected. It's because I have a higher mindset that you guys."

Der Uber Mindset? Is it the Master Mindset? Mindset, Mindset Uber Alles!!

Hmm. I hope your kids aren't as dumb as you all seem. The US signs on to an accord which prohibits the use of napalm. The US creates another napalm bomb and changes its name. The US drops napalm on civilians, I say it's illegal and in violation of international laws the US signed on to. Then I'm clueless? I have to wonder if it's simply your knowledge that I'm wholly right on this issue. And you know it's easy to see? Because the way you losers start with the usual drone typical insults over things that really aren't true. It's a deflection move and you all use it here constantly. If I had my way, the US wouldn't be using illegal and banned weapons they claim to rid the world of. If it were up to me, the US wouldn't have killed little babies and women and entire families in Iraq over what makes you pussyhawks orgasm. Human life is kind of precious to me and it would be nice if it were to you all as well. Instead of getting yourself 'owned' maybe focus on the actual facts and skip the childish insults which only make it clear you're all on the ropes. But myself, if I'm ever wrong, I can admit it. If I say something incorrect, I don't mind being corrected. It's because I have a higher mindset that you guys. I do something none of you can do. Learn from your mistakes.

No your the one that is dumber than he seems. You obviously did NOT do a lot of research on this. Let me help you out. As long as they are NOT used on people (that means specifally targeted at people). Then the use of Napalm is NOT prohibited! Now go do some more reading before you bother to post again. Your clueless because you post obviously without thinking or knowing what your talking about!

Just to prove my point. The the way the EU feels about us currently, don't you think if there was "anything" at all to this in the way of truth the EU would be calling fo heads to roll?