Yes, The US DID Use Napalm in Iraq
The Truth About It
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Ok, a recent article by one of the more hateful and very much anti-US members stated that the US violated the law by using napalm in Iraq. Instead of responding on that member's blog, as I don't post any comments on that person't blog as I consider that person a hate monger and less than credible, I thought I would research it myself and present some real facts without the obvious spin and absurd lies that were added to the story.
First of all, yes it's true. the US did use napalm. Secondly, it wasn't in violation of any laws in spite of what our friendly neighborhood hate monger would like us to believe to the contrary.
"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."
The treaty, which the US didn't sign bans the use of napalm against civilians. Notice it says nothing about being banned against enemy troops?
"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 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"
"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.'"
Hmmm, imagine that. Our military is using weapons to kill enemy troops.
Ok, now for some of the rest of the story. Yes, the Pentagon did in fact originally deny using napalm.
"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.
Ok, they were splitting hairs in an obvious PR move. It was a mistake they shouldn't have made for obvious reasons. But it still does not constitute "war crimes" or the use of any illegal weapons.
Once again someone takes a true story and twists the facts, adds some ourageous rhetoric, and seasons liberally (pun intended) with lies.
It only took a little googling to come up with several news stories from around the world that contained all of the information I have presented here, both good and bad, without the absurd anti-US lies and rhetoric to go with it.
First of all, yes it's true. the US did use napalm. Secondly, it wasn't in violation of any laws in spite of what our friendly neighborhood hate monger would like us to believe to the contrary.
"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."
The treaty, which the US didn't sign bans the use of napalm against civilians. Notice it says nothing about being banned against enemy troops?
"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 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"
"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.'"
Hmmm, imagine that. Our military is using weapons to kill enemy troops.
Ok, now for some of the rest of the story. Yes, the Pentagon did in fact originally deny using napalm.
"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.
Ok, they were splitting hairs in an obvious PR move. It was a mistake they shouldn't have made for obvious reasons. But it still does not constitute "war crimes" or the use of any illegal weapons.
Once again someone takes a true story and twists the facts, adds some ourageous rhetoric, and seasons liberally (pun intended) with lies.
It only took a little googling to come up with several news stories from around the world that contained all of the information I have presented here, both good and bad, without the absurd anti-US lies and rhetoric to go with it.
