US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Scarletwine

New Yorker
Joined
May 1, 2002
Messages
2,753
Location
Outside it's Amerika
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.
 
:sigh:

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.
 
Scarletwine said:
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.
 
Re: Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

STING2 said:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Which zionists?

Edit to add; Islamist crocodile was in the context of a Winston Churchill quote in regards to appeasment.
 
They are either Zionists, or are in my view overly influenced by Zionists close to them, like Perle and Wolfowitz.
 
If it leads them to invade other countries on false pretexts, then yes it is wrong.
 
Re: Re: Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

financeguy said:


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.

#1 MK77 munitions are not Sarin Gas or any other type of WMD and have been approved by the CCW for use against military targets. It is very difficult to contain the effects of Chemical weapons to any specific target which is why their use is banned and most military forces will not use them because of the potential that weather could push the chemicals right back on them.

#2 Saddam could never make an arguement that using Chemical Weapons against innocent civilians was the best weapon for that situation because its illegal to target and kill innocent civilians. Then again, it would not be the first time that Saddam has said or done something that was actually not serving his best interest.

#3 My best friend was involved in the assualt on Fallujah. He did not rape anyone nor did any of the other 15,000 Marines and Soldiers who were involved in destroying the terrorist who had taken refuge there and had turned the city into a base for terrorism and torture.

Saddams actions against the Kurds involved wiping out entire population of innocent civilians. The United States military does not target civilians, it targets terrorist or enemy combatents. What Saddam did is illegal under international law, what the United States did in Fallujah was legal and necessary.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

STING2 said:








Saddams actions against the Kurds involved wiping out entire population of innocent civilians. The United States military does not target civilians, it targets terrorist or enemy combatents. What Saddam did is illegal under international law, what the United States did in Fallujah was legal and necessary.
well, clusterbombs are very accurate also :up:
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

STING2 said:


Saddams actions against the Kurds involved wiping out entire population of innocent civilians. The United States military does not target civilians, it targets terrorist or enemy combatents. What Saddam did is illegal under international law, what the United States did in Fallujah was legal and necessary.

I'm sure there were a lot of insurgents present in those populations as he was quelling what he saw as a rebellion, same against the Shia. Maybe he even called them enemy combatants!

That doesn't mean I condone his actions in any way. It all comes down to legal and necessary always depends on what side your on or who wins.

I'm still disgusted by what means my government will sink to.
 
There is a distinction between waging a counter-insurgency campaign and genocide. The US millitary does not go in for wholesale slaughter of civilians deliberately; it is not trying to exterminate an entire people.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Scarletwine said:


I'm sure there were a lot of insurgents present in those populations as he was quelling what he saw as a rebellion, same against the Shia. Maybe he even called them enemy combatants!

That doesn't mean I condone his actions in any way. It all comes down to legal and necessary always depends on what side your on or who wins.

I'm still disgusted by what means my government will sink to.

Great, now your comparing the actions taken by US military personal to those of Saddam. The US military does not target innocent civilians! It is digusting what happen to the thousands of civilians in several towns in the Kurdish north! WHOLE populations in these towns were wiped out by Sarin Gas.

30 MK77 munitions were used against specific military targets over a 3 day period. The use of such minutions in that situation is legal under the CCW. I cannot understand how you could compare this to killing a whole entire town of 5,000 innocent civilians with Sarin Gas.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

STING2 said:
#3 My best friend was involved in the assualt on Fallujah. He did not rape anyone nor did any of the other 15,000 Marines and Soldiers who were involved in destroying the terrorist who had taken refuge there and had turned the city into a base for terrorism and torture.

I used the word "rape" in a metaphorical context.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

STING2 said:
The US military does not target innocent civilians!

Are Arab journalists innocent civilians or terrorists?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

STING2 said:
30 MK77 munitions were used against specific military targets over a 3 day period. The use of such minutions in that situation is legal under the CCW. I cannot understand how you could compare this to killing a whole entire town of 5,000 innocent civilians with Sarin Gas.

Every other civilized country prohibits that type of weapon including our "coalition". How many civilans in a town of 300,000 did we kill? We targeted the town - civilians live in the town - we target civilians.

It's all semantics. Saddam killed 5000, we've accidentially killed up to 100,000 and rising in an illegal invasion. And who sold him the Sarin gas and whose Sec. shook his hand after that incident.
 
500 in one incident in a campaign! A single campaign which did kill 180,000, a single campaign in a reign of terror that killed millions. There are the bodies to prove it, buried in mass graves being dug up every day, on the battlefields of wars long past.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

STING2 said:


Great, now your comparing the actions taken by US military personal to those of Saddam.

Right, we only do that when we want to justify our torturing of prisoners. Then it's OK to compare.:|
 
A_Wanderer said:
500 in one incident in a campaign! A single campaign which did kill 180,000, a single campaign in a reign of terror that killed millions. There are the bodies to prove it, buried in mass graves being dug up every day, on the battlefields of wars long past.

Of course, and many of them are because of US military actions.

The Phillipines is one of the best examples and there was some religious fever thrown into that endevor also. Cambodia and Laos - they're still being maimed or killed every day because of bombies.
 
No, have you seen one statement from this administration justifying abuse of prisoners?

No, I think that these comparisons are a hallmark of the modern left. Every abuse is torture, every death is a genocide, every detention centre is a concentration camp.
On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked: "Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?"

Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management – U.S. management.
 
Back
Top Bottom