US Using Napalm in Iraq. - Is this a great country or what?

[thebullet]

NOTE: A while back I posted a story about the US using napalm in Iraq, even though the military claimed they were not using napalm. This article from The Independent shows that we lied to the British about our use of naplam. We've been using this horrible weapon since the beginning of the war, and we may well be using these bombs against civilian populations. The original thread was about the use of napalm in Fallujah - a claim the US denies (well they deny just about every claim until the indisputable evidence is revealed.

US Lied to Britain over Use of Napalm in Iraq War
By Colin Brown
The Independent UK

Friday 17 June 2005

American officials lied to British ministers over the use of "internationally reviled" napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.

Yesterday's disclosure led to calls by MPs for a full statement to the Commons and opened ministers to allegations that they held back the facts until after the general election.

Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.

But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."

Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used
against military targets "away from civilian targets", he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets.

Britain, which has no stockpiles of the weapons, ratified the convention, but the US did not.

The confirmation that US officials misled British ministers led to new questions last night about the value of the latest assurances by the US. Mr Cohen said there were rumours that the firebombs were used in the US assault on the insurgent stronghold in Fallujah last year, claims denied by the US. He is tabling more questions seeking assurances that the weapons were not used against civilians.

Mr Ingram did not explain why the US officials had misled him, but the US and British governments were accused of a cover-up. The Iraq Analysis Group, which campaigned against the war, said the US authorities only admitted the use of the weapons after the evidence from reporters had become irrefutable.

Mike Lewis, a spokesman for the group, said: "The US has used internationally reviled weapons that the UK refuses to use, and has then apparently lied to UK officials, showing how little weight the UK carries in influencing American policy."

He added: "Evidence that Mr Ingram had given false information to Parliament was publicly available months ago. He has waited until after the election to admit to it - a clear sign of the Government's embarrassment that they are doing nothing to restrain their own coalition partner in Iraq."
The US State Department website admitted in the run-up to the election that US forces had used MK77s in Iraq. Protests were made by MPs, but it was only this week that Mr Ingram confirmed the reports were true.

Mike Moore, the Liberal Democrat defence spokes-man, said: "It is very serious that this type of weapon was used in Iraq, but this shows the US has not been completely open with the UK. We are supposed to have a special relationship.

"It has also taken two months for the minister to clear this up. This is welcome candour, but it will raise fresh questions about how open the Government wished to be... before the election."

The MK77 bombs, an evolution of the napalm used in Vietnam and Korea, carry kerosene-based jet fuel and polystyrene so that, like napalm, the gel sticks to structures and to its victims. The bombs lack stabilising fins, making them far from precise.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

A few weeks ago it was DU. Now it's Napalm. And next I suppose you'll have your panties in a wad over using grnades, bullets perhaps?

Hell, you probably would still think our guys were over armed if they were stuck out on the corner with just a billy club, like English bobbys? Of course you would, hitting someone might cause an injury! Heaven forbid!

Forgive the sarcasm, but the bullshit has just gotten too thick for me to contain myself any longer.

 

[The_Darkness]

US Lied to Britain over Use of Napalm in Iraq War
By Colin Brown
The Independent UK

Friday 17 June 2005

American officials lied to British ministers over the use of "internationally reviled" napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.

Yesterday's disclosure led to calls by MPs for a full statement to the Commons and opened ministers to allegations that they held back the facts until after the general election.

Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.

But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."

Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used
against military targets "away from civilian targets", he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets.

Britain, which has no stockpiles of the weapons, ratified the convention, but the US did not.

The confirmation that US officials misled British ministers led to new questions last night about the value of the latest assurances by the US. Mr Cohen said there were rumours that the firebombs were used in the US assault on the insurgent stronghold in Fallujah last year, claims denied by the US. He is tabling more questions seeking assurances that the weapons were not used against civilians.

Mr Ingram did not explain why the US officials had misled him, but the US and British governments were accused of a cover-up. The Iraq Analysis Group, which campaigned against the war, said the US authorities only admitted the use of the weapons after the evidence from reporters had become irrefutable.

Mike Lewis, a spokesman for the group, said: "The US has used internationally reviled weapons that the UK refuses to use, and has then apparently lied to UK officials, showing how little weight the UK carries in influencing American policy."

He added: "Evidence that Mr Ingram had given false information to Parliament was publicly available months ago. He has waited until after the election to admit to it - a clear sign of the Government's embarrassment that they are doing nothing to restrain their own coalition partner in Iraq."
The US State Department website admitted in the run-up to the election that US forces had used MK77s in Iraq. Protests were made by MPs, but it was only this week that Mr Ingram confirmed the reports were true.

Mike Moore, the Liberal Democrat defence spokes-man, said: "It is very serious that this type of weapon was used in Iraq, but this shows the US has not been completely open with the UK. We are supposed to have a special relationship.

"It has also taken two months for the minister to clear this up. This is welcome candour, but it will raise fresh questions about how open the Government wished to be... before the election."

The MK77 bombs, an evolution of the napalm used in Vietnam and Korea, carry kerosene-based jet fuel and polystyrene so that, like napalm, the gel sticks to structures and to its victims. The bombs lack stabilising fins, making them far from precise.

You know, I should be horrified that these devices are being used anywhere near civilian targets, but I couldn't help giving a "Hell Fuckin' Yeah!" when I read the title of the thread.

I've said many many times, we have armies for two purposes and two purposes only, to kill people and break things. I can't be angry at my military for doing just that, and if my house was suddenly firebombed (with me in it or not) I wouldn't blame the government of the offending army.

War is Hell -- General Patton. (and probably a great many soliders and generals before him)

 

[The_Darkness]

A few weeks ago it was DU. Now it's Napalm. And next I suppose you'll have your panties in a wad over using grnades, bullets perhaps?

Hell, you probably would still think our guys were over armed if they were stuck out on the corner with just a billy club, like English bobbys? Of course you would, hitting someone might cause an injury! Heaven forbid!

Forgive the sarcasm, but the bullshit has just gotten too thick for me to contain myself any longer.

Here Here! I'd buy you a drink if you'd have said that in my bar!

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm surprised that they managed to make the lie float at all. I saw an embedded reporter on CNN state that the forces had napalmed a target early in the war.

For what it's worth, it did shock and deeply unsettle me. It's a hideous way to die and a terrifying weapon. How much more hideous and terrifying than being shot, bombed, or blown up by a land mine, I couldn't begin to weigh, or where it stands in gruesome calculation of the least horrifying way to kill one's enemies.

 

[The_Darkness]

I'm surprised that they managed to make the lie float at all. I saw an embedded reporter on CNN state that the forces had napalmed a target early in the war.

For what it's worth, it did shock and deeply unsettle me. It's a hideous way to die and a terrifying weapon. How much more hideous and terrifying than being shot, bombed, or blown up by a land mine, I couldn't begin to weigh, or where it stands in gruesome calculation of the least horrifying way to kill one's enemies.

True...not an awesome way to die, and it's probably pretty close to the top of the horrible list, sitting right up there next to most chemical weapon attacks and virtually all bio-weapons.

As an aside, I think the embedded reporters were one of the best things the military has thought of in their propoganda machine. That meeting must have gone on something like this:

"So, what we're going to do is put a journalist in certain military units. They'll use military equipment, military camera operators, be using military transmitters, and they won't be live, so we can edit or censure any details they give that we don't want. And the people will buy that it's an objective view! They'll buy it, and I'll bet you a dollar on it!"

 

[BlackShanglan]

"So, what we're going to do is put a journalist in certain military units. They'll use military equipment, military camera operators, be using military transmitters, and they won't be live, so we can edit or censure any details they give that we don't want. And the people will buy that it's an objective view! They'll buy it, and I'll bet you a dollar on it!"

And yet they let one of them broadcast the fact that they were using napalm.

Hoist on their own petard?

 

[My I]

I thought i smelled dirty diapers. Bullet, has anyone ever told you to just shut the fuck up?

Why don't you spare us your drivel and put it someplace where people actually want to hear this shit.

Here, I'll help you.

POLITICAL FORUM

 

[The_Darkness]

And yet they let one of them broadcast the fact that they were using napalm.

Hoist on their own petard?

A few times. I didn't even know napalm was a no-no to use....

Is it a geneva convention thing or just kind of a gentleman's agreement between nations?

 

[BlackShanglan]

A few times. I didn't even know napalm was a no-no to use....

Is it a geneva convention thing or just kind of a gentleman's agreement between nations?

I don't know, and I wondered the same thing myself when I heard the reporter's statement. I didn't mean to imply that they had violated a treaty; I don't know enough to know if there is one. I just meant that the journalist had reported events that the military later attempted to deny, thus suggesting that embedding did not result in complete control of the media.

 

[minsue]

Leaving aside my strong feelings on war, this war in particular, and the weapons used

Mike Lewis, a spokesman for the group, said: "The US has used internationally reviled weapons that the UK refuses to use, and has then apparently lied to UK officials, showing how little weight the UK carries in influencing American policy."

Honest question here about the above statement....Was there ever any question about the amount of pull the UK has regarding US policy?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Honest question here about the above statement....Was there ever any question about the amount of pull the UK has regarding US policy?

I believe that Prime Minister Blair has suggested that they do have some pull as part of his explanation about why they joined us in Iraq. I think he implied that they could exert some restraining influence and help guide us, although I could be mistaken. Politicians are so very good at creating impressions rather than making statements.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't know, and I wondered the same thing myself when I heard the reporter's statement. I didn't mean to imply that they had violated a treaty; I don't know enough to know if there is one. I just meant that the journalist had reported events that the military later attempted to deny, thus suggesting that embedding did not result in complete control of the media.

Napalm is one of the Certain Conventional Weapons banned in the CCW accord. the Us isn't bound by the protocol on incindiary weapons.

Statement:

The United States must retain its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II.

It would be illegal for the UK to use such weapons. It isn't for the US to. I don't know what the protocol would be for one partner in a coalition of forces using such weapons when other members are signatory to the CCW.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Thanks, Colly. You always bring such excellent factual information to the game.

In fact, I meant to thank you for your posts (can't remember if they were here or elsewhere) about the possibility of a Japanese surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped. I was presented with this theory by a pair of relatives and could see a number of holes in their argument - what concessions were asked by the Japanese, who was doing the negotiating, how we could possibly believe people whose diplomats were supposedly negotiating a peaceful co-existance days before Pearl Harbor - but did not know about the coup attempt following Hirohito's surrender.

Can you recommend a good source to read more about that?

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thanks, Colly. You always bring such excellent factual information to the game.

In fact, I meant to thank you for your posts (can't remember if they were here or elsewhere) about the possibility of a Japanese surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped. I was presented with this theory by a pair of relatives and could see a number of holes in their argument - what concessions were asked by the Japanese, who was doing the negotiating, how we could possibly believe people whose diplomats were supposedly negotiating a peaceful co-existance days before Pearl Harbor - but did not know about the coup attempt following Hirohito's surrender.

Can you recommend a good source to read more about that?

Shanglan

To be honest Shang, the absolute most valid source isn't by American authors. It's titled Japan's longest day, by the Pacific War research Society, with forward by Kazutoshi Hando. It gives excellent insight to what was happening in Japan and details of the failed Coup,along with those officers who killed themselves when the Emperor's will was known.

Toland's the Rising Sun is also An excellent source.

Costello's the Pacific war is pretty even handed in its treatment of battles and gives fairly accurate statistics.

At Dawn we slept, By Prangue is, IMHO, the definitive narration on the attack on Pearl Harbor. His follow up, Midway is also excellent.

Parillo's the Japanese Mercahnt Marine in World War II, is probably the definitive study in that area.

That should cover about every avenue the revisionists use. If you can only afford one, Japan's longest day is best. It lets you argue the point from the perspective of those people whom the revisionists are trying to convince you were about to surrender if just given the chance.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Thanks, Colly! Your attention to the authority of the sources is especially appreciated. I think that "Japan's Longest Day" does sound like the ideal.

Cheers -

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

What the fuck is the problem... a UK politician lied.

In August 2003, the PENTAGON confirmed we used the stuff.

---
In August 2003, the Pentagon confirmed the use of Mark 77 firebombs.

"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. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

---

Did the Brits miss the memo?

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[gauchecritic]

Did the Brits miss the memo?

Sincerely,
ElSol

No, the US did, they wouldn't sign.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

What the fuck is the problem... a UK politician lied.

In August 2003, the PENTAGON confirmed we used the stuff.

---
In August 2003, the Pentagon confirmed the use of Mark 77 firebombs.

"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. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

---

Did the Brits miss the memo?

Sincerely,
ElSol

The problem, is that war is a nasty and brutish bussiness and somepeople just can't come to grips with that.

Napalm is a nasty and brutish weapon. It was developed for use in one of the most nasty and brutal conflicts of all time. For what it was designed for, no weapon in history even comes close in terms of effectiveness, not even Mustard gas, which is essentially what Napalm replaced.

It was used to kill Japanese, in hardened bunkers, pillboxes and caves. It replaced sending some poor marine with a sachel charge to blow them up or sending in an armoured dozer to bury them alive. And it saved countless american lives as bunker dwellers are very likely to shoot someone coming at them with a sachel charge, far less so an armored dozer, but practically none of shooting down a corsair dropping Napalm.

There is still no comperable way of killing enemies in hardened positions. If you are on the ground and facing such an emplacement, the stuff is worth its weight in gold. It's still in the arsenal, because it is still effective.

Brutish, yes. Nasty, yes. Effective? yes. That's war.

Perople trying to deny the troops in the field powerful weapons to salve thier fragile concience absolutely infruiates me.

It's especially infuriating because I know, if you take Napalm out of the arsenal, you are going to deal with such emplacements with bigger and more sophisticated bombs. As if blowing some to bits, maiming others and burning a few should let them sleep better at night.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Can you imagine the post that Bullet would make if D-day, or Iwo Jima were to happen today?

5,000 American troops dead in one day. Untold numbers of enemy combatants killed in the same amount of time. Machine gun nests, pill boxes and tunnels all had to be cleared with flame throwers. If either of those battles were to happen today, Bullet would be leading the charge for a full scale revolution.

War is nasty. War is hell. We didn't break any laws or agreements by dropping napalm. Napalm is a weapon. There are certain instances where it is the best weapon for the target, and I'm glad our troops are using it. It's not like we naped a village. The guy we deposed in Iraq was the only known person to wipe out entire villages. Why are you so whigged out over napalm? We use FAE bombs all the time. Their only purpose is to create a huge fire ball.

Hey Bullet: I've got your next rant thread all lined up for you. It's called a BLU 82B, better known as a daisy cutter. It's a 15,000 pound bomb. That's right, fifteen thousand pounds. We're dropping them in Afghanistan and Iraq. Here's a link so you'll have plenty of information for a daisy cutter rant.

Daisy Cutter

 

[KarenAM]

The problem, is that war is a nasty and brutish bussiness and somepeople just can't come to grips with that.

There is truth to this; it is hard for many of us to come to grips with the horror of war. But I have to wonder (and I'm not trying to start a fight here; I'm just trying to sort this out) if we are retreating from its full implications when we simply dismiss war as nasty and brutish. Does reducing war to such adjectives, and indeed then expanding on them with detailed descriptions such as I see on this thread, somehow help us cope with the indescribable horror of what naplam or Greek fire or FAE bombs actually do to other human beings?

I once had the chance to talk with one of the scientists who helped build the first atomic bombs. He didn't talk like this. I also have talked with a former American POW and Bataan Death March survivor who actually saw the flash from one of the atom bombs from his prison camp, and who is alive today because they were used. He didn't talk like this either.

Rather, in each man there was a humility that told volumes about his experience with war and such weapons. Each would probably agree that in war one should do all one can to protect one's own troops, including using horrible weapons on the other side. But neither of these men (or for that matter the overwhelming majority of combat veterans I've had the honor to talk with) would celebrate it or the deaths they had inflicted to win a war. Rather, the adjective they used is one I haven't seen on this thread:

Insane. War is insane, the scientist told me. Even when neccisary, even when unavoidable, even when you are fighting for survival against an enemy as clear-cut as the Nazis, it is insane. And so I think we should all be less angry at one another in these threads that deal with war, since the insanity that is war is a thing we must all try to come to terms with, and it is hoped then make an effort to bring to an end.

Just my thoughts, anyway.

 

[Pyed_Typer]

Lie down with dogs, bullet, and you get up with fleas.

 

[cantdog]

Now you've established that war is nasty and, let me see, politicians lie.

When you say this, Colly, Wildcard, does it mean you support that?

Politicians lie, therefore they ought to, more and more? Nobody should bother to catch them at it, because all it will show is, politicians lie?

Same for war. War is bad for everyone, some people get kidnapped and beheaded, some people get buried alive in bombed out houses, some people get blown up, maimed horribly because a fellow drives up with a car bomb. Some people drive planes into buildings, and a lotta folks die and burn, are crushed, amputated, all that.

But we are to just quit worrying about it, because hey, all it shows is, war is bad? And that makes it all just fine?

If it does, then quit getting upset about the World trade center. Fuck, all it was is war, and war is nasty. Big fuckin deal, war is nasty, everyone knows that.

If it doesn't, then climb the fuck down off people when they are trying to stop this shit. One or the other. Seriously.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

There is truth to this; it is hard for many of us to come to grips with the horror of war. But I have to wonder (and I'm not trying to start a fight here; I'm just trying to sort this out) if we are retreating from its full implications when we simply dismiss war as nasty and brutish. Does reducing war to such adjectives, and indeed then expanding on them with detailed descriptions such as I see on this thread, somehow help us cope with the indescribable horror of what naplam or Greek fire or FAE bombs actually do to other human beings?

I once had the chance to talk with one of the scientists who helped build the first atomic bombs. He didn't talk like this. I also have talked with a former American POW and Bataan Death March survivor who actually saw the flash from one of the atom bombs from his prison camp, and who is alive today because they were used. He didn't talk like this either.

Rather, in each man there was a humility that told volumes about his experience with war and such weapons. Each would probably agree that in war one should do all one can to protect one's own troops, including using horrible weapons on the other side. But neither of these men (or for that matter the overwhelming majority of combat veterans I've had the honor to talk with) would celebrate it or the deaths they had inflicted to win a war. Rather, the adjective they used is one I haven't seen on this thread:

Insane. War is insane, the scientist told me. Even when neccisary, even when unavoidable, even when you are fighting for survival against an enemy as clear-cut as the Nazis, it is insane. And so I think we should all be less angry at one another in these threads that deal with war, since the insanity that is war is a thing we must all try to come to terms with, and it is hoped then make an effort to bring to an end.

Just my thoughts, anyway.

I grew up at the VFW. I've talked to many vets and no, they don't talk like this. I can say nasty and Brutish, but they have lived it. It's far more personal to them.

Still, those are the adjectives I know and they seem to sum it up.

I don't want wars, anymore than the next person. I am not a cheerleader for this one. But this war is a reality, one I cannot change or alter. There are servicemen on the ground, puting their lives on the line everyday. I want them armed with the very best weapons and armor. And I want them to have the tactical flexibility to use whatever will best get the job done.

My concern is beyond playing politics, it's a personal concern for frieinds over there and a general concern for all our servicemen. Iknow a bit about jets, but I wouldn't dream of second guessing a pilot when he chooses a weapon from his inventory. I know a good deal about armour, but I wouldn't dream of telling a commander to use Sabot, Heat or Hesh Ammunition. And I am not in any position to second guess a commander in the field if he thinks Napalm is the best option for a tactical situation.

I don't think you could ever start a fight, your posts are always thought provoking and your tone is almost always reasonable.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Now you've established that war is nasty and, let me see, politicians lie.

When you say this, Colly, Wildcard, does it mean you support that?

Politicians lie, therefore they ought to, more and more? Nobody should bother to catch them at it, because all it will show is, politicians lie?

Same for war. War is bad for everyone, some people get kidnapped and beheaded, some people get buried alive in bombed out houses, some people get blown up, maimed horribly because a fellow drives up with a car bomb. Some people drive planes into buildings, and a lotta folks die and burn, are crushed, amputated, all that.

But we are to just quit worrying about it, because hey, all it shows is, war is bad? And that makes it all just fine?

If it does, then quit getting upset about the World trade center. Fuck, all it was is war, and war is nasty. Big fuckin deal, war is nasty, everyone knows that.

If it doesn't, then climb the fuck down off people when they are trying to stop this shit. One or the other. Seriously.

I don't know when you were voted god, but I've had it with your crap. Fuck off.

Apologies to anyone that offended besides the sanctimonious bastard it was aimed at.