I love the smell...

[jesusarenque]

Trying to draw a distinction between napalm and Mark 77 is pretty ridiculous. Even military personel refer to Mark 77 as napalm. Anywho, according to your logic why refrain from using any kind of weapon? Why not use nuclear weapons. They are also "great for clearing enemy out of tight spaces. Much better than sending in troops to get killed."

So should we just drop a nulcear weapon on Fallujah?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Who gives a [censored]. They're idiots. Just because some idiot says, "This is banned." doesn't mean anyone should care

[/ QUOTE ]

The president cared enough about people violating UN rules regarding what weapons a country can have to go to war over it.

[jakethebake]

Here's my take on the banned vs. not banned thing. We haven't used a banned weapon. We've used something close. We're at war. We should use everything at our disposal to prevent the loss of as many American lives as possible. Given we seem to have made a decision to live by the UN's rules on banned weapons, Mark 77 accomplishes that.

I reread my stupid rambling post from last night. And admittedly it was just kinda kooky sounding. Here's what I kinda meant. I think the UN is a worthless organization that has never accomplished anything worthwhile. We elect our leaders are here to serve our good under U.S. law, not the good of the world under UN mandate. (Yes, I'm aware U.S. law probably specifies somewhere that we should follow UN mandates). I think that if ignoring a UN mnadate will save American lives, then we ignore it. And I don't think we should prevent the Iraqis, iranians, or anyone else from having WMD because it's a UN mandate. We should do it because it's [censored] dangerous to us to allow thos wackos to have them. That's not hypocritical.

[nicky g]

Regardless of the issues of legality or hypcorisy, it seems to me that by using indsicriminate napalm-like weapons, as well as, apparently, white phosphorous weapons, in built-up residential areas, the coalition has severely undermined the arguments of those who said the military-aged men who were forced to stay in Fallujah and the families, who for whatever reason would not or could not leave, would be safe.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of the issues of legality or hypcorisy, it seems to me that by using indsicriminate napalm-like weapons, as well as, apparently, white phosphorous weapons, in built-up residential areas, the coalition has severely undermined the arguments of those who said the military-aged men who were forced to stay in Fallujah and the families, who for whatever reason would not or could not leave, would be safe.

[/ QUOTE ]
As opposed to discriminating bombs? Actually that was part of my point about the delivery systems. They're not as indiscriminate as you think. We see films of Viet Nam where they just dropped a bunch of them all over a ridge and blew everything to hell, and there was an entire village or hill that was just a gigantic wave of fire. But you can also use one to clear out a bunker or building that might get a lot of people killed trying to clear.

[Gamblor]

I didn't see Halifax in his profile.

Regardless, you should have seen the warm welcome Bush got in Halifax yesterday.

[ThaSaltCracka]

it said Halifax in the article, my assumption is apparently wrong anyways.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't see Halifax in his profile.

Regardless, you should have seen the warm welcome Bush got in Halifax yesterday.

[/ QUOTE ]Nothing like burning an efigy of Bush to get the party started, right Canadians?? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

He seemed like he got a nice welcome in Halifax though.

[Edge34]

Those Canadians burning Bush in effigy should just be happy we've decided to let them be Canada instead of one huge 51st state. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]







And yes, I'm just kidding...the whole Mark 77 vs. napalm debate just kinda stopped making a whole lot of sense to me...

-Edge

[Felix_Nietsche]

Napalm is not a gas. Geez, the nitwit that wrote this probably does not even know which end of the barrel the bullet exits...

The key phrase in the article was that the USA did not ratify the treaty.... So therefore the use of this weapon is legal.

So your point is????