A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Last time I checked the US millitary was not fighting in the Iraq / Iran war.Scarletwine said:
US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war
- Thread starter Scarletwine
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
A_Wanderer said:
Not directly.
It supported Iraq however at that time.
It also supported the Taliban in the 1980s.
OP
OP
Scarletwine
New Yorker
A_Wanderer said:
I agree wholeheartedly. Look up the definition of genocide or maybe just call it murder if on a smaller scale.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
It's support ammounted to ensuring that neither Iraq nor Iran could gain supremacy, it was a war that they wanted both sides to loose.
The Taliban as a cohesive entity did not exist in the 1980's, the US did provide support to the mujahadeen as well as other fighters against Soviet Agression, a policy started by Jimmy Carter that began after the invasion in 1979.
The Taliban as a cohesive entity did not exist in the 1980's, the US did provide support to the mujahadeen as well as other fighters against Soviet Agression, a policy started by Jimmy Carter that began after the invasion in 1979.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war
It is legal to use the MK77 against military targets according to the CCW. But perhaps you think it would have been more civilized to use a 500 pound bomb.
The vast majority of the people killed in the Fallujah assualt in November were terrorist. The terrorist were the target, NOT the TOWN. If the town was the target, there would be no reason to invade it. A wide number of techniques and weapons could have been used to destroy the entire town. But of course, following this logic that the USA targets civilians, our "evil government" should be "ashamed" about what it did on D-Day. Unlike the Fallujah operation, the D-Day operation to liberate France in World War II killed thousands of French civilians (20,000 in fact). I guess the objective of D-Day was to target and kill French Civilians, right?
I had friends that were involved in the Fallujah operation back in November. Are you going to say that because they fired their weapons into the city that they were targeting civilians?
Saddam has killed millions including everyone that has died in this current war. It was Saddam who failed to obey the Gulf War Ceacefire and verifiably disarm of all WMD. Saddam and his actions are responsible for the problems much of the region has experienced over the past 25 years.
There three different United Nations resolutions that approved the use of military force against Saddam. In addition there have been 3 different United Nations resolutions approving the occupation. There are no resolutions or attempts at resolutions declaring the invasion to be illegal in any way shape or form.
The United States has not killed 100,000 civilians in the war. This is a grossly inaccurate estimate of the total number of people that have died since the invasion. The number of civilian deaths from the USA targeting of Iraqi troops or terrorist is a tiny fraction of that, and definitely smaller than the number of French Civilians killed during the first few weeks of the Allied invasion to liberate France from Germany in 1944.
The United States NEVER sold Saddam Sarin Gas! It is true that Iraq obtained duel/use biological samples for medical scienctific purposes from the USA that may have been converted to use in making biological weapons which Saddam never actually used.
The United States never sold Saddam any combat weapon systems. It did supply Saddam with trucks, transport Helicopters, intelligence on Iranian combat units, and 5 Billion dollars in grain credits which is a tiny fraction of the money given to Iraq by others during the Iran/Iraq war. Iran was the country during that war which actually did receive weapon systems from the United States in the form of 2,000 TOW I missiles in exchange for the release of hostages.
If you want to know who built Saddam's military, you really don't need to look any further than the Soviet Union and I can go down the entire list of weapon systems they received from the Soviet Union if you like.
Rumsfeld did meet with Saddam in 1983 at a time when the United States and other countries around the world were trying to find a way to insure that Iran would not overrun Iraq and then invade the Persian Gulf region cutting of the planet from most of its energy supply.
Scarletwine said:
It is legal to use the MK77 against military targets according to the CCW. But perhaps you think it would have been more civilized to use a 500 pound bomb.
The vast majority of the people killed in the Fallujah assualt in November were terrorist. The terrorist were the target, NOT the TOWN. If the town was the target, there would be no reason to invade it. A wide number of techniques and weapons could have been used to destroy the entire town. But of course, following this logic that the USA targets civilians, our "evil government" should be "ashamed" about what it did on D-Day. Unlike the Fallujah operation, the D-Day operation to liberate France in World War II killed thousands of French civilians (20,000 in fact). I guess the objective of D-Day was to target and kill French Civilians, right?
I had friends that were involved in the Fallujah operation back in November. Are you going to say that because they fired their weapons into the city that they were targeting civilians?
Saddam has killed millions including everyone that has died in this current war. It was Saddam who failed to obey the Gulf War Ceacefire and verifiably disarm of all WMD. Saddam and his actions are responsible for the problems much of the region has experienced over the past 25 years.
There three different United Nations resolutions that approved the use of military force against Saddam. In addition there have been 3 different United Nations resolutions approving the occupation. There are no resolutions or attempts at resolutions declaring the invasion to be illegal in any way shape or form.
The United States has not killed 100,000 civilians in the war. This is a grossly inaccurate estimate of the total number of people that have died since the invasion. The number of civilian deaths from the USA targeting of Iraqi troops or terrorist is a tiny fraction of that, and definitely smaller than the number of French Civilians killed during the first few weeks of the Allied invasion to liberate France from Germany in 1944.
The United States NEVER sold Saddam Sarin Gas! It is true that Iraq obtained duel/use biological samples for medical scienctific purposes from the USA that may have been converted to use in making biological weapons which Saddam never actually used.
The United States never sold Saddam any combat weapon systems. It did supply Saddam with trucks, transport Helicopters, intelligence on Iranian combat units, and 5 Billion dollars in grain credits which is a tiny fraction of the money given to Iraq by others during the Iran/Iraq war. Iran was the country during that war which actually did receive weapon systems from the United States in the form of 2,000 TOW I missiles in exchange for the release of hostages.
If you want to know who built Saddam's military, you really don't need to look any further than the Soviet Union and I can go down the entire list of weapon systems they received from the Soviet Union if you like.
Rumsfeld did meet with Saddam in 1983 at a time when the United States and other countries around the world were trying to find a way to insure that Iran would not overrun Iraq and then invade the Persian Gulf region cutting of the planet from most of its energy supply.
financeguy said:
The Taliban was not formed until the early to mid 1990s. The United States did give support to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s who's leader formed the Northern Alliance, after the Soviets left Afghanistan, which would become the main enemy of the Taliban when it came to power in the mid 1990s.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Well you know the US is notorious for backing enemies of their allies and supplying them with soviet weaponry 
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
One point I always continually make: to everyone one this board who supported the war for one reason or another:
You were deceived!
Are you willing to admit it? No A-Quada connection; no weapons of mass destruction; no real interest, as far as I can tell, in bringing freedom to Iraq.
You were deceived!
Are you willing to admit it? No A-Quada connection; no weapons of mass destruction; no real interest, as far as I can tell, in bringing freedom to Iraq.
Last edited:
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Dreadsox said:
This seems to me like the pot calling the kettle back. Yes, a lot of European firms/governments armed Saddam.
But none of you guys (I mean people on here that supported the war) have admitted that it was sold on false pretenses to the public, that Bush and Blair were mendacious (and that's being nice) in their statements to their respective electorates, and that many in intelligence greatly doubted (and that is an understatement) that Saddam had links to Al Queada, or that he had WMD's. These people have been fully vindicated by events.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I am sorry; I was conditioned into believing that Saddam had WMD by the events of the 1980's and the Clinton administration in the 1990's treating that particular element of the equation with importance.
I do not think that WMD was a false premise; the fact of the matter is that Saddam acted like he had weapons, a sort of strategic ambiguity designed to prevent Iran from making a move. Post-war we have also learned that the intention of the regime was to restart weapons production when sanctions were lifted. He was a persistant threat to the region and most certainly to his own people; deposing him was the right thing to do.
Btw; liberation of the Iraqi people was stated numerous times not least in his 2003 state of the union speech.
I do not think that WMD was a false premise; the fact of the matter is that Saddam acted like he had weapons, a sort of strategic ambiguity designed to prevent Iran from making a move. Post-war we have also learned that the intention of the regime was to restart weapons production when sanctions were lifted. He was a persistant threat to the region and most certainly to his own people; deposing him was the right thing to do.
Btw; liberation of the Iraqi people was stated numerous times not least in his 2003 state of the union speech.
I guess German intelligence and the UN's own documents were lying too....
I posted a theory just before the break of war that Saddam was lying about the materials they had to make weapons to keep his neighbors in line.
When we accuse Bush and Blair of lying we are forgetting that France, Germany, and Russia all thought that Saddam had the materials too. They did not argue that he did not posses them, they argued for patience.
I posted a theory just before the break of war that Saddam was lying about the materials they had to make weapons to keep his neighbors in line.
When we accuse Bush and Blair of lying we are forgetting that France, Germany, and Russia all thought that Saddam had the materials too. They did not argue that he did not posses them, they argued for patience.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Dreadsox said:
I agree with all of the above.
One point: France, Germany and Russia were also wrong in assuming Saddam had WMD - yes you are correct. But they didn't declare war on a sovereign country.
Not that I have any particular respect for the socialists that run France and Germany, or the quasi-Stalinist that runs Russia.
Never mind, I won't bang on about it. Let's move on. It's better to be sincere.
Last edited:
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
what happend to the Napalm ?
OP
OP
Scarletwine
New Yorker
The Pentagon lied.
Defense Minister, Adam Ingram, admitted that the US had misled the British high-command about the use of napalm, but he would not comment on the extent of the cover up. The use of firebombs puts the US in breach of the 1980 Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons (CCW) and is a violation the Geneva Protocol against the use of white phosphorous, "since its use causes indiscriminate and extreme injuries especially when deployed in an urban area."
Regrettably, "indiscriminate and extreme injuries" are a vital part of the American terror-campaign in Iraq; a well-coordinated strategy designed to spawn panic through random acts of violence.
It's clear that the military never needed to use napalm in Iraq. Their conventional weaponry and laser-guided technology were already enough to run roughshod over the Iraqi army and seize Baghdad almost unobstructed. Napalm was introduced simply to terrorize the Iraqi people; to pacify through intimidation. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Negroponte are old-hands at terrorism, dating back to their counterinsurgency projects in Nicaragua and El Salvador under the Reagan Administration. They know that the threat of immolation serves as a powerful deterrent and fits seamlessly into their overarching scheme of rule through fear. Terror and deception are the rotating parts of the same axis; the two imperatives of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy strategy.
Napalm in Falluja
The US also used napalm in the siege of Falluja as was reported in the UK Mirror ("Falluja Napalmed", 11-28-04) The Mirror said, "President George Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet-fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun the world.. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.Since the American assault on Falluja there have been reports of 'melted' corpse, which appeared to have napalm injuries."
"Human fireballs" and "melted corpses"; these are the real expressions of Operation Iraqi Freedom not the bland platitudes issuing from the presidential podium.
Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, who was the head of the Iraqi Ministry of Health in Falluja, reported to Al Jazeera (and to the Washington Post, although it was never reported) that "research, prepared by his medical team, prove that the US forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks on the war-torn city."
Dr Shaykhli's claims have been corroborated by numerous eyewitness accounts as well as reports that "all forms of nature were wiped out in Falluja".as well as "hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses." An unidentified chemical was used in the bombing raids that killed every living creature in certain areas of the city.
As journalist Dahr Jamail reported later in his article "What is the US trying to Hide?", "At least two kilometers of soil were removed..exactly as they did at Baghdad Airport after the heavy battles there during the invasion and the Americans used their special weapons."
A cover up?
So far, none of this has appeared in any American media, nor has the media reported that the United Nations has been rebuffed twice by the Defense Dept. in calling for an independent investigation into what really took place in Falluja. The US simply waves away the international body as a minor nuisance while the media scrupulously omits any mention of the allegations from their coverage.
We can assume that the order to use napalm (as well as the other, unidentified substances) came straight from the office of Donald Rumsfeld. No one else could have issued that order, nor would they have risked their career by unilaterally using banned weapons when their use was entirely gratuitous. Rumsfeld's directive is consistent with other decisions attributed to the Defense Secretary; like the authorizing of torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the targeting of members of the press, and the rehiring of members of Saddam's Secret Police ( the Mukhabarat) to carry out their brutal activities under new leadership. Rumsfeld's office has been the headwaters for most of the administration's treachery. Napalm simply adds depth to an already prodigious list of war crimes on Rumsfeld's resume'.
Co-opting the Media
On June 10, 2005 numerous sources reported that the "U.S. Special Operations Command hired three firms to produce newspaper stories, television broadcasts and Internet web sites to spread American propaganda overseas. The Tampa-based military headquarters, which oversees commandos and psychological warfare, may spend up to $100 million for the media campaign over the next five years." (James Crawley, Media General News Service) It's clear that there's no need for the Defense Dept. to shore up its "strategic information" (propaganda) operations in the US where reliable apparatchiks can be counted on to obfuscate, omit or exaggerate the coverage of the war according to the requirements of the Pentagon. The American press has been as skillful at embellishing the imaginary heroics of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman as they have been in concealing the damning details of the Downing Street Memo or the lack of evidence concerning the alleged WMDs. Should we be surprised that the media has remained silent about the immolation of Iraqis by American firebombs?
The US "free press" is a completely integrated part of the state-information system. Its meticulously managed message has been the most successful part of the entire Iraqi debacle. By providing the requisite cheerleading, diversions and omissions, the media has shown itself to be an invaluable asset to the men in power; perpetuating the deceptions that keep the public acquiescent during a savage colonial war. Given the scope of the media's culpability for the violence in Iraq, it's unlikely that the use of napalm will cause any great crisis of conscience. Their deft coverage has already facilitated the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people; a few more charred Iraqis shouldn't matter.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com
Copyright: Mike Whitney.
Defense Minister, Adam Ingram, admitted that the US had misled the British high-command about the use of napalm, but he would not comment on the extent of the cover up. The use of firebombs puts the US in breach of the 1980 Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons (CCW) and is a violation the Geneva Protocol against the use of white phosphorous, "since its use causes indiscriminate and extreme injuries especially when deployed in an urban area."
Regrettably, "indiscriminate and extreme injuries" are a vital part of the American terror-campaign in Iraq; a well-coordinated strategy designed to spawn panic through random acts of violence.
It's clear that the military never needed to use napalm in Iraq. Their conventional weaponry and laser-guided technology were already enough to run roughshod over the Iraqi army and seize Baghdad almost unobstructed. Napalm was introduced simply to terrorize the Iraqi people; to pacify through intimidation. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Negroponte are old-hands at terrorism, dating back to their counterinsurgency projects in Nicaragua and El Salvador under the Reagan Administration. They know that the threat of immolation serves as a powerful deterrent and fits seamlessly into their overarching scheme of rule through fear. Terror and deception are the rotating parts of the same axis; the two imperatives of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy strategy.
Napalm in Falluja
The US also used napalm in the siege of Falluja as was reported in the UK Mirror ("Falluja Napalmed", 11-28-04) The Mirror said, "President George Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet-fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun the world.. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.Since the American assault on Falluja there have been reports of 'melted' corpse, which appeared to have napalm injuries."
"Human fireballs" and "melted corpses"; these are the real expressions of Operation Iraqi Freedom not the bland platitudes issuing from the presidential podium.
Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, who was the head of the Iraqi Ministry of Health in Falluja, reported to Al Jazeera (and to the Washington Post, although it was never reported) that "research, prepared by his medical team, prove that the US forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks on the war-torn city."
Dr Shaykhli's claims have been corroborated by numerous eyewitness accounts as well as reports that "all forms of nature were wiped out in Falluja".as well as "hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses." An unidentified chemical was used in the bombing raids that killed every living creature in certain areas of the city.
As journalist Dahr Jamail reported later in his article "What is the US trying to Hide?", "At least two kilometers of soil were removed..exactly as they did at Baghdad Airport after the heavy battles there during the invasion and the Americans used their special weapons."
A cover up?
So far, none of this has appeared in any American media, nor has the media reported that the United Nations has been rebuffed twice by the Defense Dept. in calling for an independent investigation into what really took place in Falluja. The US simply waves away the international body as a minor nuisance while the media scrupulously omits any mention of the allegations from their coverage.
We can assume that the order to use napalm (as well as the other, unidentified substances) came straight from the office of Donald Rumsfeld. No one else could have issued that order, nor would they have risked their career by unilaterally using banned weapons when their use was entirely gratuitous. Rumsfeld's directive is consistent with other decisions attributed to the Defense Secretary; like the authorizing of torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the targeting of members of the press, and the rehiring of members of Saddam's Secret Police ( the Mukhabarat) to carry out their brutal activities under new leadership. Rumsfeld's office has been the headwaters for most of the administration's treachery. Napalm simply adds depth to an already prodigious list of war crimes on Rumsfeld's resume'.
Co-opting the Media
On June 10, 2005 numerous sources reported that the "U.S. Special Operations Command hired three firms to produce newspaper stories, television broadcasts and Internet web sites to spread American propaganda overseas. The Tampa-based military headquarters, which oversees commandos and psychological warfare, may spend up to $100 million for the media campaign over the next five years." (James Crawley, Media General News Service) It's clear that there's no need for the Defense Dept. to shore up its "strategic information" (propaganda) operations in the US where reliable apparatchiks can be counted on to obfuscate, omit or exaggerate the coverage of the war according to the requirements of the Pentagon. The American press has been as skillful at embellishing the imaginary heroics of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman as they have been in concealing the damning details of the Downing Street Memo or the lack of evidence concerning the alleged WMDs. Should we be surprised that the media has remained silent about the immolation of Iraqis by American firebombs?
The US "free press" is a completely integrated part of the state-information system. Its meticulously managed message has been the most successful part of the entire Iraqi debacle. By providing the requisite cheerleading, diversions and omissions, the media has shown itself to be an invaluable asset to the men in power; perpetuating the deceptions that keep the public acquiescent during a savage colonial war. Given the scope of the media's culpability for the violence in Iraq, it's unlikely that the use of napalm will cause any great crisis of conscience. Their deft coverage has already facilitated the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people; a few more charred Iraqis shouldn't matter.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com
Copyright: Mike Whitney.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Thanks for the article, Scarletwine.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Nerve gas now, right, and from that one source, exellent, one really wonder why an evil power bothers to send troops into a city and putting their lives on the line when it could just level the thing totally with artillery killing everything inside without any loss of life for their people, oh well.
Last edited:
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Napalm is effecient enough thank you.A_Wanderer said:
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I think it's OK to criticise *some* Zionist politicians. I support the State of Israel, but not necessarily the policies of its government; I don't like Ariel Sharon. Sometimes pro-Israel politicians do things I don't like. I do support a Palestinian state as long as it can peacefully coexist along with Israel.
FatBratchney
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2005
- Messages
- 52
A_Wanderer said:
I thought the USA was SUPPOSE to be helping bring "democracy" to IRAQ.
Similar threads
