Use of Napalm & Chemical weapons in Iraq - Page 5

cleaver_simian · 11-09-2005, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enforcer1975

In the eyes of some anti-americanists...yes

btw... why is our Russia or what's left of it not affected by their own kind of "anti-russian-movement"? Because they don't give a damn.

Do you trust/like any of your neighbouring countries?

JoeB · 11-09-2005, 07:40 PM

uhm, nokivk, I don't think simian was trying to insult you. I think he was trying to say most civilians had no way of getting out of that town...

(and to some others in this thread, let's just take a step back, breathe and not take things so ridiculously personal)

YoJimbO · 11-09-2005, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeB

(and to some others in this thread, let's just take a step back, breathe and not take things so ridiculously personal)

Well said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enforcer1975

In the eyes of some anti-americanists...yes

btw... why is our Russia or what's left of it not affected by their own kind of "anti-russian-movement"? Because they don't give a damn.

USA = EVIL even if they do right, some geeks always try to find anything to find something bad in what they achieved. ( not my opinion! )

I am not suggesting that the USA is "Evil", and I don't hate Americans, I can assure you there. My point is, any nation that does not agree to such a treaty, when all it does it prohibit the weapon's use against civilians - can hardly be considered "legit". This opinion applies to any nation, not just the US.

BrokenArrow · 11-09-2005, 07:57 PM

well saying that it cant be used against civilians is one thing, i hardly think that the US would just go in and bomb the shit out of civvies with napalm, thats only a way to hurt the already hurting image the US has with the world.

if the treaty prohibits using them in civilian areas is different. in an age where most major fighting is taking place close to heavily populated civilian areas (as opposed to using napalm in vietnam's jungles) then theres a problem. napalm is in those situations i would say a formidable psycological weapon, no one wants to be burnt alive. Bombing isnt conducted the way it used to be: en masse. in WWII you all have heard about carpet bombings using incendiaries, thats just not the way it works anymore.

Ive posted before about the use of Blu-82 (cant remember exact numeral designation) bombs. these things were used in vietnam to take out huge swaths of jungle to make room for LZs and fire bases. in the gulf war they were used to destroy minefields. when an iraqi unit got word that theyw ere due for a hit from one of these monsters, many just called it a day and came out waving white flags.

Of course i am not in any way going against reducing arms, but when some of these things can make the difference between a few marines or soldiers making it back, i think thats reason enough to keep them.

cleaver_simian · 11-09-2005, 08:01 PM

Anyone else feel this war wasn't as well planned and thought out as you'd expect from the superpowers of the World... personally I think lots of civilian casualties could have been avoided, it could have been done with more tact and respect towards our soldiers and the Iraqis themselves. More innocent people have died now than would have if Sadam was left in power to snuff it!

BrokenArrow · 11-09-2005, 08:06 PM

no doubts there.

Somehow the Bush Administrations list of things that could go wrong (4 feet of snow, too many roses being thrown at troops etc.) hasnt panned out exactly how they planned. bad situation from the get go. with very little support from the rest of the world theres no way the US shouldve gone in. patience was the key word here and our president didnt cut it. instead even more of the world hates us because people make votes based on whether or not the candidate approves of gay marriage and abortion, two things that while important, need to be left to the courts.

cleaver_simian · 11-09-2005, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrokenArrow

Bombing isnt conducted the way it used to be: en masse. in WWII you all have heard about carpet bombings using incendiaries, thats just not the way it works anymore.

We like to think that but what about the shock and awe bombing of Baghdad...

Anyone got any facts or figures on it, remembered some pretty crazy stats, sorry, I’m to tiered to look!!! argh

BrokenArrow · 11-09-2005, 09:09 PM

alright so you are saying we raised baghdad to the ground?

Tacamo · 11-09-2005, 10:23 PM

In a sense yes, but definitely not in the traditional sense. Light fighters are capable of carrying bomb loads that dwarf those of WW2 strategic bombers. Most of the vital infrastructure was destroyed in either the Gulf War or OIF.

Happy · 11-09-2005, 11:46 PM

Are u sure this is the war going on now becuase the US military has decomisioned most if not all of it naplam weapons. And said the first Gulf war would be the last time they used them.

11-09-2005, 07:40 PM	#42
JoeB Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 27	uhm, nokivk, I don't think simian was trying to insult you. I think he was trying to say most civilians had no way of getting out of that town... (and to some others in this thread, let's just take a step back, breathe and not take things so ridiculously personal)

	Last edited by JoeB; 11-09-2005 at 07:42 PM..

11-09-2005, 08:01 PM	#45
cleaver_simian Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10	Anyone else feel this war wasn't as well planned and thought out as you'd expect from the superpowers of the World... personally I think lots of civilian casualties could have been avoided, it could have been done with more tact and respect towards our soldiers and the Iraqis themselves. More innocent people have died now than would have if Sadam was left in power to snuff it!
cleaver_simian Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10

11-09-2005, 10:23 PM	#49
Tacamo Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 603	In a sense yes, but definitely not in the traditional sense. Light fighters are capable of carrying bomb loads that dwarf those of WW2 strategic bombers. Most of the vital infrastructure was destroyed in either the Gulf War or OIF.
Tacamo Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 603

11-09-2005, 11:46 PM	#50
Happy Retired PR Developer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: East Coast Posts: 1,812	Are u sure this is the war going on now becuase the US military has decomisioned most if not all of it naplam weapons. And said the first Gulf war would be the last time they used them.
	Proud Killer of 38 Spambots. After much intense calculation, it has been decided that your thread is already in the forum that you wish to move it to. Deep Thought should be jealous. - Moderator Control Panel

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-09-2005, 07:57 PM	#44
BrokenArrow Retired PR Developer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: NH, US Posts: 3,082	well saying that it cant be used against civilians is one thing, i hardly think that the US would just go in and bomb the shit out of civvies with napalm, thats only a way to hurt the already hurting image the US has with the world. if the treaty prohibits using them in civilian areas is different. in an age where most major fighting is taking place close to heavily populated civilian areas (as opposed to using napalm in vietnam's jungles) then theres a problem. napalm is in those situations i would say a formidable psycological weapon, no one wants to be burnt alive. Bombing isnt conducted the way it used to be: en masse. in WWII you all have heard about carpet bombings using incendiaries, thats just not the way it works anymore. Ive posted before about the use of Blu-82 (cant remember exact numeral designation) bombs. these things were used in vietnam to take out huge swaths of jungle to make room for LZs and fire bases. in the gulf war they were used to destroy minefields. when an iraqi unit got word that theyw ere due for a hit from one of these monsters, many just called it a day and came out waving white flags. Of course i am not in any way going against reducing arms, but when some of these things can make the difference between a few marines or soldiers making it back, i think thats reason enough to keep them.

11-09-2005, 08:06 PM	#46
BrokenArrow Retired PR Developer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: NH, US Posts: 3,082	no doubts there. Somehow the Bush Administrations list of things that could go wrong (4 feet of snow, too many roses being thrown at troops etc.) hasnt panned out exactly how they planned. bad situation from the get go. with very little support from the rest of the world theres no way the US shouldve gone in. patience was the key word here and our president didnt cut it. instead even more of the world hates us because people make votes based on whether or not the candidate approves of gay marriage and abortion, two things that while important, need to be left to the courts.

11-09-2005, 09:09 PM	#48
BrokenArrow Retired PR Developer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: NH, US Posts: 3,082	alright so you are saying we raised baghdad to the ground?

Sponsored Links

Sponsored Links