I love the smell...

[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.

[MaxPower]

Here is an American paper for you:


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...9_1n5bomb.html

Its not napalm it is an incendiary bomb. As far as I can tell incendiary bomb is just a euphemism for napalm.

[ThaSaltCracka]

from that article:
Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. ..........

Reporters for CNN and the Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald were told by unnamed Marine officers that aircraft dropped napalm on the Iraqi position, which was adjacent to one of the Marines' main invasion routes.

Their reports were disputed by several Pentagon spokesmen who said no such bombs were used nor did the United States have any napalm weapons.

The Pentagon destroyed its stockpile of napalm canisters, which had been stored near Camp Pendleton at the Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station, in April 2001.

Yesterday military spokesmen described what they see as the distinction between the two types of incendiary bombs. They said mixture used in modern firebombs is a less harmful mixture than Vietnam War-era napalm.
"This additive has significantly less of an impact on the environment," wrote Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily, in an e-mailed information sheet provided by the Pentagon.

He added, "many folks (out of habit) refer to the Mark 77 as 'napalm' because its effect upon the target is remarkably similar."

[MaxPower]

I'm not sure what your point is with that quote. You guys jumped all over the original poster for no good reason. The military has admitted to using Mark 77. Mark 77 is essentially the same thing as napalm. They just changed the name and they make it in a different way.

So there is nothing wrong with him saying that the US has used napalm.

Whether using napalm should be condemned is another matter.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what your point is with that quote. You guys jumped all over the original poster for no good reason. The military has admitted to using Mark 77. Mark 77 is essentially the same thing as napalm. They just changed the name and they make it in a different way.

So there is nothing wrong with him saying that the US has used napalm.

Whether using napalm should be condemned is another matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not the same thing. They aren't using napalm. There's a reason they use Mark 77 and not napalm.

[ThaSaltCracka]

what you are doing is saying one thing is something else because they are similar. Is and F150 the same thing as a Ranger? They are both trucks, but not the same type of truck. The Mark 77 is a incidenary weapon. Napalm is an incidenary weapon, but they are not the same incidenary weapon.

BTW, I spelled that word wrong three times.

[jakethebake]

Napalm it great stuff. It's great for clearing enemy out of tight spaces. Much better than sending in troops to get killed. It was banned by the UN because of that picture back in the vietnam era. Yes, sometimes civilians are injured in war. It's a terrible thing, but not because of the type of weapon used.

There are a couple of differences between the M 77 bombs and napalm. First, it's thicker so it doesn't end up where it isn't supposed to quite as much. Second, the delivery system is more accurate than the way napalm was delivered. Does it still burn and kill the enemy? Yes. Is it possible for it to burn civilians? Yes. But they're not the same. It's also possible to drop bombs on civilians and kill and maim them that way. Or shoot them. Or any other of a myriad of ways. But the fact is M77 is different and it's not banned. Even if it were, it's the UN, the last people we should letting tell us how to wage war.

[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????

[jesusarenque]

So your point is????

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the U.S. expect other countries to adhere to international weapons bans if the U.S. does not? Why should the U.S. expect Iran not to develop nuclear weapons?