US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-17-2005, 02:37 PM   #1
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 01:49 PM
US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

We had this discussion months ago about napalm use on Falluja. Guess who was right? It is disgraceful what our military is willing to do against people.
US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

By Colin Brown
Deputy Political Editor

06/17/05 "The Independent" - - 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.

©2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 02:46 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
dandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: styrofoam peanut commune
Posts: 4,310
Local Time: 03:49 PM


more lies.

i find it so ironic that the US seems to think that only they should be able to have and use weapons of mass destruction.
__________________

__________________
dandy is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 06:15 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Sickening. Truly and utterly sickening.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-17-2005, 10:56 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
We had this discussion months ago about napalm use on Falluja. Guess who was right? It is disgraceful what our military is willing to do against people.
US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

By Colin Brown
Deputy Political Editor

06/17/05 "The Independent" - - 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.

©2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
#1 the article only states that

"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."

According to the article, the only confirmed use of MK77 was over a period of 3 days during the Spring 2003 invasion by the coalition. 30 MK77 munitions were used by the United States Marines against Iraqi MILITARY positions from March 31, 2003 to April 2, 2003.

Given that this was the best weapon to use in each of these individual situations, I don't see how one could see it as a disgrace.

In addition, tens of thousand of munitions were used throughout the war and the fact that 30 MK77 munitions were used could easily have gone unoticed by "certain officials". I doubt anyone lied given this fact plus there is nothing to hide about the use of such munitions against military targets. Even the CCW permits the use of such weapons against military targets.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-18-2005, 05:22 AM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:49 PM
Throw enough shit on the wall...comething will stick.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-18-2005, 05:43 AM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Re: Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Given that this was the best weapon to use in each of these individual situations, I don't see how one could see it as a disgrace.
Hmmm...interesting reasoning, maybe Saddam Hussein's lawyer should use this reasoning in conducting his defense - i.e., hey using chemical weapons was the "best weapon to use" in the particular situation.

There is no moral difference between the Anglo-American/Zionist rape of Fallujah and Saddam's actions against the Kurdish population.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-18-2005, 06:00 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:49 AM
Pardon me but what exactly do the "Zionists" have to do with the "rape" of Fallujah, I find the characterisation of those that believe in a right of the Jewish nation to a homeland in this manner without fact to be somewhat offensive. Are you saying that all Zionists support the "rape of Fallujah", are you saying that it was Zionists who drafted the millitary strategy?

Is this one more case such as the use of neocon or rich New York bankers where the sinister characters that architect evil are Europes oldest scapegoat.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-18-2005, 06:03 AM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:49 PM
I am saying that the invasion of Iraq was at the behest of Zionists who in my view exercise a disproportionate influence over US foreign policy.

Why is it ok for you to use phrases like "Islamist crocodile" but it's not ok for us to have a dicussion about the influence of Zionists on US foreign policy?
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-18-2005, 06:06 AM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:49 AM
Which zionists?

Edit to add; Islamist crocodile was in the context of a Winston Churchill quote in regards to appeasment.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-18-2005, 06:06 AM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle were among the prominent ones.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-18-2005, 06:08 AM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle were among the prominent ones.
Rumsfeld and Cheney are old fashioned realists; what makes them Zionists?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-18-2005, 06:10 AM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:49 PM
They are either Zionists, or are in my view overly influenced by Zionists close to them, like Perle and Wolfowitz.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-18-2005, 06:13 AM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
They are either Zionists, or are in my view overly influenced by Zionists close to them, like Perle and Wolfowitz.
And how are they influenced, to what ends?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-18-2005, 06:14 AM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Invading Iraq to remove a potential threat to Israel, for one.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-18-2005, 06:20 AM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:49 AM
Is it wrong for the US to pursue goals that also aid Israel?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com