Officials confirm dropping firebombs on Iraqi troops

[Pekka]

Are firebombs your choice of weapon when destroying bridges? I don't know.. just seems like there would be better ways too. THis is purely technical observation, I have no probs of using napalm. I mean hearing that napalm is used. They need Susie Q's - the new bridge buster mods!

[Panag]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, I did read above:

Quote:

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. James Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

Quote:

Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

Case Closed

hi ,

um , ...... imran , these are not panag's views , ......

if you would have read the thread you would have seen that , .....


have a nice day

[Dry]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If they didn't want to die, they shouldn't have been there to resist. **** 'em.

Great!!!
Only kamikazes and suicide bombers have the right to resist !!

[Sava]

I just regret the fire bombing didn't take longer to kill them.

[Pekka]

Drye, Nah.. everyone has the right to resist. But no one should be expected to return alive. Sure, it's tragic at least to the other side it is, but odds are you're going to get killed. So yes, if they didn't want to die, then they should have done something else, like flee, desert, something. It is a different thing wanting to die, accepting the possibility of getting killed and not wanting to die.

[Pekka]

wanting to die = suicide bombers & other nuts
accepting the possibility of getting killed = soldiers
not wanting to die = deserters, dodgers, many types fit in to this category.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dry

Great!!!
Only kamikazes and suicide bombers have the right to resist !!

They have the right to resist, there just isn't much point in whining and *****ing about the consequences if they choose to do so. We're not going to dismount infantry, walk into their prepared positions and get ourselves killed trying to save *******s who are shooting at us, or in position to do so.

So they have two choices. Resist and die, or get the hell out of our way and stay out of it.

[Poogas]

Originally posted by oedo


so how about this:
If the Americans didn´t want to die, they shouldn´t have been there to attack, **** 'em

I don't get your point... This is common sense... If you don't feel right defending or attacking for your country, and take that responsibility along with the facts you will be put in harms way, than why would you join.

I truly have no clue what point you are trying to get across with the above quote...

Originally posted by Dry

Great!!!
Only kamikazes and suicide bombers have the right to resist !!

Same goes for you... Everyone has the right to resist, but they have to acknowledge that they will most likely be killed going up against a superior force, or atleast the fact they are going into harms way.

Originally posted by Sava
I just regret the fire bombing didn't take longer to kill them.

I don't really agree with that, but it did make me laugh.

Originally posted by Pekka
wanting to die = suicide bombers & other nuts
accepting the possibility of getting killed = soldiers
not wanting to die = deserters, dodgers, many types fit in to this category.

Don't know why i'm quoting this, but its a good bit of info for this thread, so a second look at it by some of these guys couldn't hurt.

[Japher]

Are firebombs your choice of weapon when destroying bridges?

It's a cheap way to destroy WOODEN bridges

Without napalm you can't say "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning" without looking stupid.

War is not kind... who'd of tunk it?

[Dry]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So they have two choices. Resist and die, or get the hell out of our way and stay out of it.

Resistance is futile. I know, I've heard that before

MtG, you do not justify their death by being on the wrong side, defending a wrong cause, you justify their death by being weaker. Not even by beeing part of the risk they accepted to take by resisting. No, for you: they resisted, they deserve to die.

May I remind you the definition of fascism?
Fascism is the rule of power.
'Because I am the strongest' is enough to justify all fascists actions.

I haven't seen much other justifications in your posts.

[oedo]

if this thread has one point, then it is that the USA needs to reinvent conscription again. this so what, it´s war-chickenhawk attitude is hardly bearable.

[Japher]

oedo: you seem to have never had the honor to meet someone whose choice it is to fight and to possibly die for one's country.

[Dis]

this is outrageous.

we need to have non lethal ways of conducting war.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Dissident
this is outrageous.

we need to have non lethal ways of conducting war.

hi ,

well one could always try to talk the enemy into boredom , ......


have a great day

[Dis]

to further clarify. I was not 100% trolling in that above post, more like 80%

But wouldn't it be cool if we could develop weapons that could just knock people uncouncious for several hours? then we just round them up and put them in camps.

Then those unsavory peacniks would have nothing to complain about.

[Poogas]

Originally posted by Dissident
this is outrageous.

we need to have non lethal ways of conducting war.

Lol, I'm hoping you made that as a joke, but either way I laughed my ass off when I read it.

[Al B. Sure!]

napalm became an issue in Vietnam? wasn't it being used in Korea and WW2? why no complaints back then?

[Defiant]

My only problem is, we didn't get enough of them, they are still shooting at us, should have burned those b@stards too.

[Japher]

We could just Nerf them...

[Gibsie]

The Russians already tried it. Didn't work.

[Japher]

Supersoaker?

[Spiffor]

Well, as a cheese eating surrending monkey, I sure am surprised to see so many brave Americans telling Iraqis they'd better be deserting when facing an overwhelming force... There must be a double standard somewhere

Besides, the Saddam regime took harsh measures to avoid desertion. Among them was a pressure over the soldiers' families : if the soldier deserts, the family is toast. You'll notice the Iraqi army stopped to oppose significant resistance when the Americans entered in Baghdad, and I'm sure that's because most soldiers knew they could now desert without fear of vengeance.

But I'll chime with the "war is hell, war is ugly, there are no humane weapons" here. This is true. And this is precisely why I oppose war.

[Al B. Sure!]

i never understood how anyone could just completely oppose war... what about when the Germans owned your country, spiffor?

[oedo]

oedo: you seem to have never had the honor to meet someone whose choice it is to fight and to possibly die for one's country.

most soldiers I know started out as conscipts. even if they decide to stay, I wouldn´t say for sure it´d be their actual choice to fight and possibly die.
but anyway, I don´t think it´s a good way showing respect by telling to a seriously wounded soldier it was your decision, you could have deserted instead. you knew they would use giftgas and such. "smart" speeches out of the mouth of a chickenhawk are certainly the least thing an injured soldier or the family of a killed soldier needs.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
napalm became an issue in Vietnam? wasn't it being used in Korea and WW2? why no complaints back then?

hi ,

thats simple , apolyton was not born yet , neither was the net , to mobilize the left , .....

there was huge protest against it in the vietnam war , but it did not achieve a lot , .....

have a nice day

[Dis]

believe it or not, I'm very upset over all the soldiers who died in the Iraq war.

That was not necessary imho.

If we would just assassinate people like the good ole' days, we could have taken out Saddam and his 2 sons.

Of course we could have gotten someone worse in power. But then we just assassinate them. We keep assassinating until someone good comes into power

The only problem with that plan is the WOMD. We did have to enter the country to find those. But there doesn't appear to be any WOMD, so that point is moot.

I say we cut the military in half, and get a CIA and NSA which actually knows what they are doing. We need real spies. Like the russians had.

[Spiffor]

Albert:
I do not oppose war in every circumstances. Actually, I favored the western peacekeeping operations in Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast, and I'd like to see the US do the same in Nigeria (this is not war per se, but it sure can and did get rough).

In the specific situaton of WW2, I think France should have reorganized and continued to fight, profiting from Germany's overstretchness. But the French authorities and most citizens gave in to panic when they have seen a seemingly invulnerable German army penetrating in France as easily as in butter.
I may have had a radically different idea if I lived at that time, and if I had just lost a relative in the fights (400,000 French died during WW2 - it's quite bad for a war we didn't fight in).

In the specific situation of Iraq, the stake wasn't worth the horrors of war.

[Defiant]

Spiffor,
I have always stated we are in Iraq to have presence in the ME to stop future terrorist attacks. The whole area has anti US sentiment which in turn causes 15/19 terrorists that were Saudis go into planes and put them in our civilian buildings. I find that a VERY LARGE STAKE, maybe you don't but like you said, your country was over run like butter maybe you don't have the same threat meter as I do.

[Spiffor]

The belief that you went to Iraq to stop terrorist attacks is delusional. The only positive consequences of the war in Iraq wrt terrorism is that you will soon have enough leverage to order the Sauds to stop funding radical Islamism and their teachings of hate. That's about it.

There were tons of reasons to go to war in Iraq, and the war on terror did indeed play a small part. But the stake of the war in Iraq wrt terror is about as high as going to war against Niger wrt terror. I.e, it has nearly no direct outcome on terrorism.

[Defiant]

Again that is your point and you are entitled to it no matter how misled it is.
We have already got Syria back peddling on their terrorist beliefs, Iran is answering pretty tough questions on their nuclear program as well as their holding of suspected terrorist heads, Saudi is on alert from us and we are in their back yards, watching.
You may call that delusional but I call it results, BTW, all this in about 3 months after the war was called.
Knock on wood, we havn't had a major terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.