US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq
The Independent August 10, 2003

In-Depth Coverage

By Andrew Buncombe

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. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.

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. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war.

The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

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.

The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war.

"Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon," said Robert Musil, director of the organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility. "It takes up an awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds." Mr Musil said denial of its use "fits a pattern of deception [by the US administration]".

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.

But John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it." Marines returning from Iraq chose to call the firebombs "napalm".

Mr Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the weapons was outrageous. He said: "It's Orwellian. They do not want the public to know. It's a lie."

In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in the war.

Can you give us a link to this article?

The original was here, but you had to pay to read it -
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...sp?story=432201

Yet, now, only a few hours later, the option of paying for that archived article is no longer available from their site.

Cute, huh?

But, I got a copy of the same article here that was free-
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...palm-iraq01.htm

Bush's re-election gets frosty reception from 'Old Europe' story on the independent. can't read this story i guess this is censored for US
this might be bush's two internets has anyone had trouble with your emails today

Wheres the trouble ... in getting other country websites? UK?

This looked like a credible article until I notice who the director of globalsecurity.org was. John E. Pike has a habit of espousing conspiracy theory type stuff. Read about his flying saucer theories here, it kind of makes you wonder if he's all there. http://www.ufoarea.com/conspiracy_cia_lied.html

Marine, were you in Vietnam?

Okay, let's see here, American forces used the most effective means to attack military targets and personnel IOT avoid American casualties. Where's the beef?

Methinks you might be implying we should have done something different. If so, what? Would you have preferred something different be done, even if it meant more American casualties?

Please, no diversion or obfuscation in your response. Your well known history of exactly that in the old forum necessitates me saying this here.

BTW, where's your avatar?

big sky brad, were you ever in the Corps as your use of the Marine avatar on the old forum seemed to imply?

When I graduated from comm school the top 2 graduates got a choice of duty stations, I picked Force Troops Atlantic as far from Vietnam as I could get; the other guy choose to stay in San Diego. He was gone to Vietnam within 3 months, I stayed at Camp Lejeune about a year before I got orders for Vietnam.

One thing I really liked about Nixon was he started cutting back on deployments to Vietnam the same time I got orders to go to Vietnam. I had orders to report on 27 April, 1972 to CG 3rd Mardiv and five days before was due to report I received new orders to report CG 2nd Mardiv.

The important difference here was 3rd Mardiv meant you was going to Vietnam, 2nd Mardiv meant you was staying at Camp Lejeune. Technically, 3rd Mardiv was in Okinawa but all they had left in Okinawa was three clerks with typewriters forwarding everyone on to Vietnam.

I ended up spending three fourths of my career in either FMF Atlantic or 2nd Mardiv. The only time I was around any shooting was Grenada and Panama.

Everybody I knew from boot camp and comm school went to Vietnam, I was just lucky, I didn't have to go.

I'm curious. Why would it make any difference if napalm or similar were used? Are there more and less civilized ways to slaughter humans? Is bombing hospitals ok as long as we can watch the event through the tv cameras on the front of the smart bombs? When some neo-con knownothing claims "precision bombing makes the war sanitary" are we to ignore the evidence of huge piles of artilery shells piled up for the siege of a large city?

The entire world knows US had largest stokpiles of every sort of WMD ever invented, yet refuese to ratify anti-personel landmine treaty, or any other civilized anti-war treaty of any type. (Claims refusal to cede control of a "domestic" issue to international authority, an old hack story still often used eg. in invasion of iraq)

It's all just bogus bits.

There's a time and a place for everything, even napalm


I was, what about you?

Gee brad, you finally made it over here. How come you haven't stopped by the Vets/Military area yet? I'm sure the old gang would be glad to see you again, and we've got some new folks too.

I see you've met one of them. Marine is a retired MGySgt, I'm sure you know what that is, right?

What happened to that nice Eagle, Globe and Anchor you were displaying on your posts on the old forum?

Anyway I'm glad to have found you!

I have bumped into some stuff on the internet that I am trying to discredit for my own peace of mind. I was wondering if some of the military folks might be able to help me debunk the use of depleated uranium rounds in Iraq. Specifically are we using this stuff and does it release a toxic dust that causes an array of heath problems in our soldiers and in non-combatants? I understand that the stuff hangs around for a while so I was concerned.

Thanks for your help.

Methinks that's now the standard 25mm armor piercing round in use by all branches of the American military. They use it in our armored vehicle busters because it provides greater crew protection and survivability to move onto the next battle.

Uranium is very dense and very heavy. Because it is a potentially toxic substance special handling precautions are used.

I don't believe any "dust" is realized by its use, although slivers and fragments certainly are a possibility. As this stuff has a half life in the tens of thousands of years methinks "the stuff hangs around for a while" is accurate, but certainly not in an airborne status.

If IAW forum rules you'd start a new topic on this subject you'd likely get a lot more input.

Hope this helps some.

Does this serve as corroborating?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/militar...99_1n5bomb.html

I can remember back when the best thing a Marine had to take on an armored vehicle was called a LAW (stands for Light Anti-tank Weapon).

My personal experience with the LAW was the tank it couldn't kill was a hell of lot more hazadous to your health than some "maybe" uranium dust.

Darn brad, you must have overlooked these question, probably just an oversight 'cause I know you've revisited the topic since they were posted, but would never dodge a question.


Okay, let's see here, American forces used the most effective means to attack military targets and personnel IOT avoid American casualties. Where's the beef?

Methinks you might be implying we should have done something different. If so, what? Would you have preferred something different be done, even if it meant more American casualties?big sky brad, were you ever in the Corps as your use of the Marine avatar on the old forum seemed to imply?

Please, no diversion or obfuscation in your response, direct questions deserve direct answers. Your well known history of exactly that in the old forum necessitates me saying this here.

I think I was one of his influences, I called him on a lot of as brad called it "horse hockey" in the Gun Control forums, and all he ever did was call me names.
I dont know if he was, but his conduct their was "unbecoming of a Marine".

To all my Brother Marines out there , Early "Happy Birthday Marines"

esp. "Methinks you might be implying we should have done something different. If so, what? Would you have preferred something different be done, even if it meant more American casualties?" Yeah, I'd have liked to see you do something different. How about NOT STARTING AGGRESSOR WARS for the sole purpose of colonizing the country and it's oil? That would make a great START!

'Twould appear you've not availed yourself of all the news leading up to our invasion of Iraq. IMHO had you done so you'd be able to discuss this more intelligently.

IAC our troops are now in harms way and under fire. Methinks this is the wrong time and wrong place to have any rhetorical exchanges over whether or not the war was undertaken " for the sole purpose of colonizing the country and it's oil". It has little to do with the subject of this thread.

"'Twould appear you've not availed yourself of all the news leading up to our invasion of Iraq. IMHO had you done so you'd be able to discuss this more intelligently."

Exactly what "news" would that be? Colin Powell lying to the UN Security Council? Pres. Bushes discussion of "unanium from Africa" in his State of the Union Address? I do clearly recall immediately these two, as just a part of a much larger pattern (of lies for a double intent which was never presented to the people or the congress for evaluation, as far as I can discern.)

I also clearly recall Sean Penn's visit to Iraq (see San Francisco chronicle, Dec. 16 2002 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../16/MN24675.DTL ) and his subsequent treatment on Larry King Live CNN show immediately following, in which he was so badly slandered I was surprised Penn didn't just pop Larry one right on the show. Oh, yeah. I recall alright. I recall thinking to myself "What is he doing? He must be betting that there are no WMD. What a risk!!!" You see, at that time your press even had ME convinced there must be imminent threat weapons that the UN wasn't controlling. Stupid me.

BTW, what ever happened to Penn since? Perhaps he's just not "marketable" any more?

Methinks he napalmed his own career by this political activities.

So how is it that an Oscar (winning/nominated?) actor has his "career napalmed" for making a valiant effort to point out a TRUTH to the people well before any soldiers go into harms way?

What is it the US people think he did wrong?

ROTFLMAO!!!!! You're kidding, right?

He was had, we knew he was had, I even read where, after the fact, HE knew he was had.

That is the dumbest thing I've seen yet! He was precisely right, as has been admitted by every national leader involved in the stupid mess including buddy Brit there who has had to APPOLOGIZE FORMALLY to his parliament, and Spain, who've pulled out. Only one left is Bush. What ARE you smoking??

I suppose now your gonna tell me the Dixie Chicks singer was wrong too?? Learn to read.

The problem with Napalm is its public perception, as a cruel and unselective killer. And if it doesn't kill you you'll be scarred and mutilated for life. This is the reason why it is worse to Napalm a hospital than to bomb it.

The Vietnamese photo of the naked little girl running from a napalm attack is one of the enduring examples of the horrific injuries this weapon can cause. If we bear in mind that we are supposed to be liberating the people from Iraq, not killing them, then this might not be the best weapon to use.

Napalm, despite being used since and having its name and 'receipe' changed, is a monika of sorts for the Vietnam war and brings to mind all the mistakes and reasons for failure therein. All it will take is another photo like the Vietnam one to build up more resentment against the US, not just from US citizens but also from Muslim/Iraqi fanatics.



Russus

On Democracy Now (link tv) there was a report stating that doctors in Fallujah claimed that many of the injured (insurgents/civilians) were burned so badly that their skin melted. According to the report, it was a sign of a certain type of firepower--a powder of some sort.

Are the Americans using a chemical for the attack in Fallujah?

Its sounds like what we call either White or Red Phosphorous, it is not a chemical weapon, it is an incindary weapon most commonly used for smoke screens and screening effects. It can also be used to destroy POL (petroleum, oil, lubricants) sites or ammo dumps due to the incindary effects. The weapon systems using this are Artillery, mortars and aircraft both fixed wing(jets) or rotary wing(helos).
If the injured were burned by this they were either in the wrong place at the wrong time or were actively engaging US forces and should consider themselves lucky they are still alive.

If it isn't napalm, it's something else!! What about Korea. Didn't we use anthrax?? I've posted this link before but I guess it's too long to hold anyone's attention. Knowing there must be hundreds of dead innocents in Fallujah is making me feel very ill. Knowing that our soldiers are at high risks fighting this illegal war is just too much for me to take in. Where will it all end and where are the peacemakers.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FAR405A.html

Where are the peacemakers?

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

I thought VX or neutron bombing was the most effective.

The thread below should provide some insight.
I believe the included reports from Dr. Doug Rokke, ( Ph.D., Major (retired) United States Army Reserve, Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project ) are able to present a minimum of credibility and should draw a minimum of curiosity from our friendly neighborhood Vets.

DEPLETED URANIUM

target='_blank'>


http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...?showtopic=3033

I think that might be an error, given statements like "In the early 1970's, the US Army began researching the use of depleted uranium metal in kinetic energy penetrators and tank armor. High density materials such as tungsten (with density 19.3 g/cm3) and DU (with density 19.05 g/cm3) were considered, however, DU was ultimately selected due to its availability and pyrophoricity [14], [54], [57]. While 50% of tungsten has to be imported, mainly from China, DU is provided for free to arms manufacturers [14]. Tungsten also has much higher melting point (3410ºC) than uranium (1132ºC) and lacks pyrophoricity. Consequently, a tungsten projectile becomes blunt on impact and is less effective in piercing armor " (http://vzajic.tripod.com/3rdchapter.html)

The bottom line is, DU is preferred even over tungsten (similar densities) because when the projectile hits armour it "burns its way through". Don't you think that's likely to spread a lot of the uranium material all over the target area as a fine aerosol?

Also noteworthy is that the depleted uranium is given free to mfgrs., whereas tungsten would have to be imported.

Bush is so dumb I'm surprised he didn't ask for Agent Orange strikes as well! :o

Naw, agent orange is out of date. Nowdays they're using tons of Roundup II to defoliate "cocaine plantations" (and tropical forests) in Columbia and Equador. Many believe the real purpose is to enable aerial surveys for petroleum to be more accurate. Unfortunately the associated dispersant agent they're using with the Roundup is a cyanate base, and releases cyanide if burned.

Many local farmers use "slash and burn" subsistence farming methods. Too bad I guess.

Yeah, you're right. Methinks I should have said "American forces used the most effective means available at the time to attack military targets and personnel IOT avoid American casualties." My bad!

The WP noonanda referred to in a previous note is also used in illumination rounds, so burning particulate matter falling from the sky and getting on peoples' skin is definitely a possibility for what those doctors were describing. Having had to treat lots of Marines that tangled with WP I can tell you that it's tough to put out and burns 'til there ain't no more WP left to burn.

Just out of curiosity has anyone seen the guy that started this thread come back to it since? I'da thunk if he initiated a topic he'd be interested in participating in the discussion. Oh wait, silly me! Methinks I forgot that on the old forum he had a tendency to evade questions where the answers didn't support his arguments and philosophy. Guess it's the same on this site, eh?

Now that's an idea to cut US casualties down to zero.

And all this time I thought you to be throughly anti-war and didn't give a d*mn about the troops.

Your solution is a bit extreme though, I don't think the pentagon will go for it.

Kim Phuc



"Pain never disappears. You just learn how to deal with it."

http://www.kimfoundation.com/en/index.htm

I think your friend is having trouble with the "IAC" part, which usually plays out as "well, regardless, we're in now and we've got to finish it." We're sending people to their deaths because of George Bush's advisors, nothing more. Not "IAC". Because of Bush's people. Even Colin Powell says there was no connection to 9/11, no yellow cake deal. Even Richard Perle says this is an "illegal war." But never mind all that.

Let's say you had your choice of ways to die: by being covered with burning napalm, or with a quick, lethal shot to the head. Your choice? Of course, the napalm. And if we need to euthanize dogs, say, should we use a lethal gas or flaming napalm? Careful! PETA's watching.

Why stop with napalm? Why not use nerve gas? Saddam learned how to use it. What? Oh, we're not like him? Really?

Actually, he gave his best performance ever in "Mystic River." You should get the DVD. It's Eastwood's best directing, too.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Let's start at the top.

Don't know why you refer to the individual I was responding to as " your friend", but it would appear he understood what I was saying. For your benefit I'll try to make it clearer, "IAC" means in any case, nothing more, nothing less. If your perception differs so be it, that's your problem not mine.

Your quote from my note is incomplete without putting it in context with the remainder of the paragraph. In toto it reads: "IAC our troops are now in harms way and under fire. Methinks this is the wrong time and wrong place to have any rhetorical exchanges over whether or not the war was undertaken " for the sole purpose of colonizing the country and it's oil". It has little to do with the subject of this thread." IMHO the meaning was, and is clear. It is as pertinent now as it was then. The person I was responding to seemed to be trying to start an off topic rhetorical exchange on the first day of a sustained battle in which some of the forum members had family and friends as participants.

As to your questions regarding how would I choose to die I'm guessing you mean in battle. Having actually seen my share of combat I can tell you that was not something I dwelt on. Instead I worried more about how I was going to stay alive and worried about that on a day by day basis. Others told me that was their main consideration too. The only people I recall worrying about how they were going to die both died in battle. Methinks their defeatist attitude might have contributed to their demise.

If your contention is that napalm, or the modern equivalent is an inhumane instrument of waging war I'll just say that as long as it's effective in killing the enemy and saves the lives of me and my comrades I really don't care. A military leader uses the most effective legal means to kill the enemy and take objectives, thus minimizing casualties of those serving under him. The situation described in the story big sky brad posted sounds like a perfectly valid and legal use of what was available against a military target and military personnel. War is neither pretty or hummane. Euthanizing dogs is not an equivalant.

Based on the tone of your questions I'm guessing you've never served under fire. I say that because if you had you would never even ask them.

As I've addressed your questions maybe, unlike big sky brad, you'd be considerate enough to address what I asked him. Methinks you might be implying we should have done something different. If so, what? Would you have preferred something different be done, even if it meant more American casualties?

A question.....why do people start a thread, then abandon it when the discussion supports something other than their position?

"The flying-saucer community is definitely onto something," in charging that the military is hiding something, Mr. Pike said.

There are two schools of thought on the nature of such a cover-up. One, from Mr. Pike and other aerospace experts, holds that many sightings over the decades involved secret federal projects featuring advanced aircraft and reconnaissance missions.

i don't see any wacky 'flying saucer theories' in Mr. Pike's quote, just the opposite - sounds more like he's saying that the fine folks at DARPA et al. probably have more going on then we know about. and personally i'd be worried if they didn't.
remember the unveiling of the F-117? that was, at one time, a 'secret federal project' featuring 'advanced aircraft', was it not?

Mr. Pike was head of Space Policy at the Federation of American Scientists, and i don't think they give that post to crackpots.