OT - US used napalm in Iraq

[NoMyths]

No comment, just for informational purposes:US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=432201)

Excerpts:

"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.

"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 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."

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by NoMyths
No comment, just for informational purposes:US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=432201)

Excerpts:

"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.

"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 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."


Kill your enemies, in an environmentally safe way!

[The Afoci]

If it isn't napalm they used, it isn't napalm they used. They admit to using a "improved" version of it, so I don't see what the problem would be with that.

Please inform me if there is a problem like it being banned or such. I am not aware of what the problem would be with using napalm in Iraq.

[bbor]

Was it in the morning?

[Killebrew]

NM - If they didn't want to get napalmed*, they shouldn't have hidden all those WMD's. You can't have it both ways after all.

*Now with deep sheeting action!

[sachmo71]

Yes, it's controversial, but it is an effective weapon against troop concentrations. Especially when they are grouped out in the open.

[QuikSand]

I don't really know too much about this, but I have to say - on first blush this sounds a lot like the sheepish half-lying husband:

Her: Did you watch that "Girls Gone Wild" video?
Him: Uh, no, honey.
Him (thinking): No way, it was "Girls Gone Wild III," dummy!

[panerd]

Originally posted by The Afoci
If it isn't napalm they used, it isn't napalm they used. They admit to using a "improved" version of it, so I don't see what the problem would be with that.

Please inform me if there is a problem like it being banned or such. I am not aware of what the problem would be with using napalm in Iraq.

I can't personally answer your question, but I would guess you could go to any of our nation's VA hospitals and ask a Vietnam vet that same question.

[QuikSand]

The half-truth is becoming an absolutely essential commodity for our political leaders these days - and practically anyone who deals with the press. Yes, I know how so many people are furious with our last president about how he lied about his sexual liaisons - but he did it in inestimable style, always looking for a way to technically answer the question accurately, while clearly seeking to mislead. This was also his approach in the deposition in which he was accused of perjury, not to mention the infamous "I did not ave sexual relations..." finger-shaking speech.

But it's getting larger and worse than Mr. Clinton. He may have told half-trusth about sexual dalliances - but this is now becoming par for the course for political figures in every stage of decision-making and public discourse. It's not a partisan issue -- though I think Mr. Clinton will deserve it if he's seen as the pioneering figure in this disturbing trend.

But for those who still care a whit about whether the public acceptance abouut the war in Iraq was built on lies - listen to the latest Administration arguments about it: "Well, technically we were right... British intelligence did have this information. The President didn't really say that we believed it - only that they had it." And before we hear the knee-jerk beliievers rush to the defense of our CIC, just give it some thought-- just because each word of the statement is true, does that make it right to say in the State of the Union, knowing full well what tone that sets and what role that plays in the debate?

We get what we deserve with our leadership. Unless we, as the electorate, demand "straight answers" from our would-be leaders, we simply aren't going to get them. Instead, what we'll get in an increasingly bloated staff room full of handlers, spin doctors, and wordsmiths who will sculpt and massage the details of each message, deliberately to allow our leaders to lie to us in wholly improbable and untoward ways, all while technically clinging to just enough truth to mount a defense, which we will be all to willing to accept.


I really don't know whether I give two shits about napalm in Iraq, or whether "sexual relations" includes oral copulations. But I do know that I don't want to be lied to by the people placed in positions of public trust.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by panerd
I can't personally answer your question, but I would guess you could go to any of our nation's VA hospitals and ask a Vietnam vet that same question.

Out of curiosity, do you think you know what a (any?) vet would say? if so, please share.

[Fritz]

dola Kudos to QS

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by The Afoci
If it isn't napalm they used, it isn't napalm they used. They admit to using a "improved" version of it, so I don't see what the problem would be with that.

Please inform me if there is a problem like it being banned or such. I am not aware of what the problem would be with using napalm in Iraq.

I didn't know about this either. The most concise statement I could find was here:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

In particular, here's the salient statement:

The use of Napalm and other incendiaries against civilian populations was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980. The United States didn't sign the agreement but claimed to have destroyed its arsenal in 2001.

Sounds like we begrudgingly waited to do away with our Napalm stores... until you hear that we came up with bigger, badder Napalm. Sounding a lot like the "designer drug" scene (something else I know rather liittle about, too, I confess).

[panerd]

Originally posted by Fritz
Out of curiosity, do you think you know what a (any?) vet would say? if so, please share.

Here we go. Should we be the 1,000,000,000th group of people to debate whether the naked girl running down the street was running from a napalm bomb? It is such a fun arguement to have with conservatives on one side and flaming liberals on the other. But such a diverse crowd as the FOFC would be able to see both sides of an issue like this so clearly. :rolleyes:

But to answer your question, I would guess that most of them could tell you first hand about the effect of a "napalm-style" bomb and the irony of these being used to stop somebody else who may be considering using weapons of mass desturction.

Edited to clearify poor description of Sadaam Hussian

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by panerd
... and flaming liberals on the other.

No pun intended I assume?

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by QuikSand
But I do know that I don't want to be lied to by the people placed in positions of public trust.
Great post QS, and this statement in particular is something that I've been saying since before the war began.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by panerd
Here we go. Should we be the 1,000,000,000th group of people to debate whether the naked girl running down the street was running from a napalm bomb?


Ah, now I understand where you are coming from.

I don't understand the importance of this debate, if there even is one.


But to answer your question, I would guess that most of them could tell you first hand about the effect of a "napalm-style" bomb and the irony of these being used to stop somebody else from possibly developing weapons of mass desturction.

You guess? Why ask the Vietname Vets? Why not a WW2 or Korea vet? Are the Viet Vets imparted with some special insight?

[Fritz]

NM, Quik -

To be fair, esoteric outlets have been talking about the use of incindiaries before the war even started. It wasn't exactly a secret.

[panerd]

Originally posted by Fritz




You guess? Why ask the Vietname Vets? Why not a WW2 or Korea vet? Are the Viet Vets imparted with some special insight?

From what I know we Napalmed the shit out of Vietnam and I was unaware of it being used as much in Korea or WWII. If I am wrong about this then I stand corrected. New Statement: Ask any person who has witnessed the effects of Napalm to explain why this is an issue.

Before I get berated for not serving in Vietnam (in part because I was 1 year old when the conflict ended) let me remind you that I was responing the the Afoci who didn't see why using a newer form of napalm was an issue. I would think any honest person would disagree and I thought veterans of Vietnam would be the most appropriate people to explain it to him.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by panerd
From what I know we Napalmed the shit out of Vietnam and I was unaware of it being used as much in Korea or WWII. If I am wrong about this then I stand corrected. New Statement: Ask any person who has witnessed the effects of Napalm to explain why this is an issue.

Before I get berated for not serving in Vietnam (in part because I was 1 year old when the conflict ended) let me remind you that I was responing the the Afoci who didn't see why using a newer form of napalm was an issue. I would think any honest person would disagree and thought veterans of Vietnam would be the most likely people to explain it to him.

I am not going to berate you, but I think you might get a different opinion than you expect... (but like you, I am guessing)


(a side note: the more controversial the war domesticly, the more controversial the use of certain weapons. killing people by any means is easier when you have moral certitude on an issue)

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by Fritz
NM, Quik -

To be fair, esoteric outlets have been talking about the use of incindiaries before the war even started. It wasn't exactly a secret.
Esoteric kind of means secret, Fritz. :)

[Fritz]

Originally posted by NoMyths
Esoteric kind of means secret, Fritz.

In one meaning. I was using it more to mean "industry" outlets as opposed to popular ones. In other words, the information was out there, but not on MSNBC/CNN/FOXNews.

[Buccaneer]

But it's getting larger and worse than Mr. Clinton. He may have told half-trusth about sexual dalliances - but this is now becoming par for the course for political figures in every stage of decision-making and public discourse. It's not a partisan issue -- though I think Mr. Clinton will deserve it if he's seen as the pioneering figure in this disturbing trend.


I hardly think he was a "pioneering figure" since it had been going on for a long time, at least to JFK when TV media came into being and extending to LBJ and Vietnam, Nixon, etc.

Also, you have constantly stated the issue about Clinton and his on-the-job blow jobs (esp. in this example of half-truths) as being the sole target of ridicule. I submit that his mastery of half-truths and no-truths extends for beyond that affair into everything that he was about, from political demogary to his justification of wonkiness and indecision. My beef with him has not nothing to do with his bj even though that is a symptom of his typical behavior. You keep bringing that up as his main target of failings and that rings very hollow to me.

Now, that is not to say the current administration and all future administrations will be any better. Not with a scandal-obsessed media and consumers that eat that up. It's just the level of expectations and a continued trend for decades now.

[EagleFan]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Sounds like we begrudgingly waited to do away with our Napalm stores... until you hear that we came up with bigger, badder Napalm. Sounding a lot like the "designer drug" scene (something else I know rather liittle about, too, I confess).


Napalm wasn't banned so it's not about when and if it was ever destroyed, or if a better type was created. It is only banned in use against civilians (from the quote you provided from your source), not enemy troops.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Napalm wasn't banned so it's not about when and if it was ever destroyed, or if a better type was created. It is only banned in use against civilians (from the quote you provided from your source), not enemy troops.

I read it that way, too - no debate. And as I have said in this thread, I don't have any particular opinion on whether using it in Iraq is a big deal.

What I have focused on here is the lie, or if you prefer, the half-truth. It seems pretty clear that the military leadership were asked if we used napalm, and they denied it. Now we find that we used napalm plus instead. The forthright answer, in my opinion, would be "We are using materials very similar to napalm, in situations that are appropriate and in keeping with internationally accepted rules of engagement."

But that's not what we get. We get "nope" and a snicker because the question was not framed specifically enough to absolutely force the truth to come out.

[CAsterling]

Interesting.....

Can't see the problem, if using this weapon saved the life of one American/British/Spanish soldier in Iraq, then I'm all for its use.
As has already been pointed out, use of Napalm is banned against civilian targets, which means enemy soldiers in a combat zone are far game. So whether or not this is considered Napalm its still not an issue

As for the half truths and lies by omission by 'public officals', I kind of expect that as part of the norm in life - I don't believe I have a right to know everything, nor do I need to know the capabilites and weapons of the military before/during or even after they are used - so they can omit/distort any data they like if it improves my safety.

Self preservation is crucial as far as I am concerned and anything that the military has to improve my chances gets my vote.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
What I have focused on here is the lie, or if you prefer, the half-truth. It seems pretty clear that the military leadership were asked if we used napalm, and they denied it.

This is almost certainly the result of a directive. I wonder where that directive was authored.

[Drake]

My father-in-law was a combat Marine in Viet Nam. I know he loved Napalm -- it saved American troops' lives like his.

On the other hand, he wasn't very fond of Agent Orange after the related cancers cost him first his leg, and then his life late last summer.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Mr. Clinton. He may have told half-trusth about sexual dalliances
Umm, he out and out lied. Under oath. I thought we could all admit that now.

[Fritz]

INFORMATION WARFARE: Napalm No Longer News

August 11, 2003: Napalm made the news again recently as reporters breathlessly announced that American aircraft had used napalm during the Iraq campaign. According to the Department of Defense, the Mark 77 Firebomb was used by marine warplanes several times in support of marines battling their way towards Baghdad.

Napalm is jelled gasoline, an incendiary bomb that originally used gasoline, naphthene and palmitate to create a large, deadly and impressive fireball when it went off. The term "napalm" comes from the two original ingredients naphthene and palmitate. After World War II, an improved formulation using benzene (21%), gasoline (33%), and polystyrene (46%) replaced the older version.

Napalm was popular with American troops during World War II because it was able to get at enemy troops in caves and fortifications. Napalm saved lots of American lives. During the Vietnam war, napalm got bad press because it was used near civilians, killing and injuring many civilians. But it stayed in the arsenal until, after the Cold War ended, large stocks of aging, and unlikely to ever be used, bombs and other munitions were destroyed. In the 1990s, the navy, which had the last remaining stock of napalm, decided to destroy their existing 34,563 napalm bombs and 2.6 million gallons of napalm. This was completed in 2001 and press releases issued.

The Mark 77 Firebomb is made using kerosene and benzine. When it hits a target, it looks like the two earlier versions of napalm, but the Department of Defense says it isn’t napalm. Of course, technically, the post World War II version of napalm wasn't napalm either. However, the Department of Defense didn't create the Mark 77 firebomb in secret. Reference to it can be found in a 1999 document at http://dodssp.daps.mil/dodiss/jul15_99.pdf. A more complete description can be found in a 2002 document at http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb2.html. But the Department of Defense didn't make any effort to call attention to this third generation napalm. This appears to be an information war tactic that worked, for a while. Interestingly, the media jumping on the Mark 77 story produced little uproar, indicating that napalm has lots its sting, at least as an image issue.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTIW.HTM

[Abe Sargent]

So, let me see if I can get this bit of hypocrasy straight -

1). We bemoan how the politics has changed. How media spends too much time on the salacious and not enough on substance. How media hounds people. How nobody cares if Clinton got his weenie waxed as long as he did or did not do a good job as President.

2). We then expect public figures to answer every scrutinizing question, answer every question that had no business being asked int he first place, and if they don't answer these questions to the exactness we demand, then we get into a huff.

A general, who is not an elected offical but someone promoted because he's good at killing people and blowing up stuff, deems that telling people about the new firebombs before or while they are used might tactically interfere with the war going on. And we're pissed?

WTF gives anybody here (except for maybe Chemical Soldier) the right to second guess the military on such a penny-ante issue? I mean, sure, if the military is whosalse slaughtering newborns or sitting on their duff, that's one thing. But this is a tiny, measly thing. So what if they mislead reporters about weapons currently in use on a battlefield.

Why is that a bad thing?

I have to admire a person, politician, public figure, and so forth that can successfuly dodge questions that HAD NO BUSINESS BEING ASKED.

-Anxiety

[QuikSand]

For the record, I have absolutely no problem if the military wants to respond to a large slate of questions by saying "for security reasons, we're not going to disclose tactics and strategies of our ongoing campaign" or something of the sort.

My issue herein is not one of disclosure, it's one of lying and offering half-truths. I have no interest in compromising our security, and agree that there are plenty of things being asked that don't require answers - particlarly when it comes to defense and military planning.

So say so. Say "it isn't any of the public's business" rather than lying about it with some linguistic sidestepping.


I have to admire a person, politician, public figure, and so forth that can successfuly dodge questions that HAD NO BUSINESS BEING ASKED.

And I disagree with this, at least on its surface. If in your judgment the question doesn't need to be asked - then the response shoudln't be to lie -- but rather to point out that the question is inappropriate.

If that's what you mean by "sidestep" than I'm in agreement with you. But I don't think it's appropriate for a public figure to make a judgment about the question's propriety and then decide whether to respond truthfully.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Anxiety
I have to admire a person, politician, public figure, and so forth that can successfuly dodge questions that HAD NO BUSINESS BEING ASKED.



When it comes to how our public officials (military included) are spending our money and representing our interests, there are no questions that have no business being asked. There may be questions that, for national security reasons, shouldn't be answered at the time they are asked, but as QS said, those questions deserve a non-response, not a half-truth or outright lie.

[Dutch]

Reporter: WMD?
President: For Security reasons...

Reporter: Saddam Hussein?
President: For Security Reasons...

Reporter: Napalm?
President: For Security Reasons....

QS - Nice try, but if the leader of the free world engages the leaders of the free press in this manner he will be buried a lot faster than mixing a few technical details around.

The man is engaging the press to appease them, not to lie to them. But at the same time he cannot play all his cards or else national security is effected. I think it's a fine line our Presidents have had to play with the media and the public.

Why wouldn't Bill Clinton just come out and admit he had sex with Monica Lewinsky and bombed foreign countries to cover up what would have been front page scandal stories?

Same thing, it's a tight rope, and if you are biased against our current President, I hardly will believe for a second that it's because the President didn't tell YOU the whole truth. Yes, he's a public figure, but he doesn't owe you a bit of information if it's at a cost of lives or liberty.

You need to remember that.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Dutch
You need to remember that.

Uh, thanks, I guess.


I am trying to be an equal-opportunity critic here, but I also understand that if I go out of my way to equally insult every single human being on the planet, you will find a way to argue that I was being unfair to George W. Bush. It's your nature.


I agree with your observation about the fine line - and that "national security" is something of an invitation to dodge legitimate questions. I think that genuine abuse of this would lead to the kind of political burial you describe.

But I'm not sugesting that a public figure, or even President, ought to cloak himself in that kind of respone fo everything. On the contrary - I'm saying that a forthright, honest answer is worth something. It's the right thing to do.



And to an earlier comment - no, I don't think Bill Clinton was the first politician to employ the half-truth. But I do think that it will be one of his legacies, and that he is an all-time champion at it. And I truly hope that one of the things he is remembered for, contrary to his own wishes, is his insistence on being a weasel at every turn.