US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

I am somehow under the impression that i am discussing things with people not really interested in fruitful discussion

Gazrok, the use of Napalm is forbidden even against soldiers when these dont have adequate cover...

Didn't see that detail, oops... What a stupid stipulation? That's like saying "no nukes except against hardened positions"

No wonder we didn't sign it!

Point is...we didn't, so nyah!

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
I am somehow under the impression that i am discussing things with people not really interested in fruitful discussion

Nope. You're discussing things with people who are unwilling to swallow the self righteous hypocritical crap that you spout.
You have your own little "hate the West and refuse to see logic" agenda. It's therefore almost impossible to discuss anything with you.

Fruitful? Get real dude. The only fruit that should be mentioned in the same sentence as you is Bananas.

Originally posted by Gazrok
No wonder we didn't sign it!

Point is...we didn't, so nyah!

Stop the crack, this isnt a hollywood movie, we are talking about real innocent people dying horrible deaths at the hands of real madmen.

"to swallow the self righteous hypocritical crap that you spout.
You have your own little "hate the West and refuse to see logic" agenda"

Leveller, I would feel obliged if you could refrain from childish and idiotic insults. If any rational criticism other than "Saddam has WMD" "Saddam did 9/11" or "Iraqis are evil and deserve it" had been presented here, i would have bowed to your arguments. But since it wasnt, i'm afraid that your insults are a sign of inferiority in this discussion.




[Edited on 11-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Leveller, I would feel obliged if you could refrain from childish and idiotic insults. If any rational criticism other than had been presented here, i would have bowed to your arguments.

BS.
There is plenty of rational critisism, but you're too blind and bigoted to notice it. You always conveniently skip over logic to serve your own purposes.
If somebody tells you something that you disagree with, it doesn't matter how irrational YOUR argument is - you will put it and swear by it, even though there are those of us who can see that you are guided by nothing but hatred.

As for any "childish and idiotic insult". Dude. Every bloody post you make is a childish and idiotic insult.

Stop the crack, this isnt a hollywood movie, we are talking about real innocent people dying horrible deaths at the hands of real madmen.

Jeez..lighten up a little... You should know by now, my answers to these serious issues are usually tongue in cheek.....

What was so innocent about them though? They were soldiers, of an enemy we had declared war on, and given multiple options of surrender (which many wisely heeded). There was nothing "innocent" about these troops who were napalmed.

cry me a river, build me a bridge, and get over it.

Gazrok: "What was so innocent about them though? They were soldiers, of an enemy we had declared war on, and given multiple options of surrender (which many wisely heeded). There was nothing "innocent" about these troops who were napalmed."

Wow, back that sanctimonious truck up a bit.

It's not a matter of Geneva Conventions, it's a matter of a respect for human life, something even the military should follow. If the whole rest of the world sees napalm as an abhorrent weapon, and the US uses it anyway, does that mean the rest of the world is a bunch of pansies or that the US acts like an arrogant, power-drunk Caesar?

Is your average US soldier innocent? Does he deserve to be gassed? ("Hey, we didn't sign any Geneva Convention against using chemical weapons, so we can use 'em! Kablammo!") Isn't he hoping to get home to his wife and kids and family just as much as Mr Big Bad Iraqi Army Regular? Or is he a subhuman evil killing machine only bent on destruction and thus who cares if he dies fast or slowly burns to death?

Try putting yourself in someone's shoes before you start spouting off about something you know nothing about.

Who knows if the target was even military. Is there a bodycount of the enemies? Pictures? Has the press been given access to the site?

Or is it just the Pentagon saying, "Oh, hell yeah they were soldiers. Big tall mean ones."?

And you should add "There was nothing "innocent" about these troops who were napalmed while we were illegally invading their country . It's more apt.


Jakomo - Enemy of Ignorance


p.s. when I slag the US administration and foreign policy, please bear in mind that I actually have a lot of American friends. They're smart, open-minded and kind people, which is why I like them. Too bad more people like them weren't in their government.

Speaking for myself, I could care less if we use napalm in Iraq. In case all you foreign/liberals on this board forgot, war is hell. You seem to lose site of everything else going on in the world when you hear the rumor that the US may have used an illegal weapon of war.

One million Iraqi lives aren't worth the life of one American to me.

Is war supposed to be fair? of course not. go cry into a pillow.

[Edited on 11-8-2003 by goregrinder]

I planned on staying out of this fray, but the self-righteous garbage has finally worn me down.

Humanity? Who was it that wanted to talk humanity? You want to talk humanity, talk to the people that survived the domestic gassing by Hussein, the tortures, rapes and beatings inflicted upon the citizenry by these "humane" soldiers, and then go talk to the Kuwaitis who remember the polite occupation a little over a decade ago.

Humanity? Humane is getting the war finished and get it finished darned-well quick-like. Humane is both protecting the infrastructure (that is to say, not blowing all the bridges into space with HE rounds) and at the same time running like Hell to keep the troops from turning the civilian population of Baghdad into a huge hostage scene.

And, if you want to show a more "civilized" war from previous recent history, go ahead. WWI? Maybe II? No, they were brutal and horrific. Absolute firestorms were inflicted upon both German and Japanese cities, but that's ok as that was for other reasons, right? No, this war on Terror is mostly for the U.S. citizenry, so we are expected to fight IAW your beliefs, right? I wonder how it'll be if the day ever comes that you whiners' nations are attacked, either by vicious terror attacks that kill thousands and cripple your economy for years, or even yet, a "civilized" neighbor brutally attacks your "civilized" nation. I'll bet the song you sing to us won't be one of peace, love and harmony.

If you little soft, snivling whimps think a handful of fuel/air bombs on military targets are horrific, you should still be gnashing your teeth over the Twin Tower attacks. Wait a minute, did you shed a tear for our fallen, or did you immediately turn to page "You Brought It Upon Yourselves" in your Hate America hymnals?

My God, this is war those who play by the rules lose and even some who break them have a great chance of losing also. You use any weapon you have especially if you are the defenders. This is your country, your homes and your people you do whatever it takes to fight off the invaders, Geneva Convention, UN rules, if your faced with several nations including the world's greatest military power do whatever it takes to win. They cannot fight a prolonged war it would cost billions of dollars to maintain, something the US cannot do especially with their deficet.

Although on the other hand the war was practically won on day 2, the stuff about fierce resistence is pretty much BS there were 3 guys held up in a building firing random shots. Almost the entire Iraqis army gave up or went home. If the army acutally tried then war would still be raging in Iraq.

Originally posted by hellfireburns
Most of this war was fought inhumane,

:::ahem:::

is there such a thing as a humane war? lol

this logic some of you people use is simply hilarious!



but it was worth a chuckle to me...

Originally posted by goregrinder
One million Iraqi lives aren't worth the life of one American to me.
[Edited on 11-8-2003 by goregrinder]

Of all the diatribe in this topic this is the worst.

So, if you show empathy for the human condition, then you will appreciate why people doing the same calculation in reverse, backed by equivalent religious dogma about eyes for eyes, teeth for teeth and destroying infidels, size you up as a target and want to take out millions of you. That is what your attitude breeds. It is totally unevolved.

This attitude that one life is worth more than another really ought to be educated out of people by the time they leave elementary school.

No, silver, i actually have a friend over there right now. There was fierce fighting, and alot of Iraqi soldiers are dead. Alot. Not that i really care, though.

M, you do not live in the United States. Your country is not involved in the war. There aren't Spanish soldiers dying. You have no personal stake in this war.

As i previously stated, co cry into your transformers pillow.

Originally posted by goregrinder
M, you do not live in the United States. Your country is not involved in the war. There aren't Spanish soldiers dying. You have no personal stake in this war.

Again, childish and without foundation. You have absolutely no concept at all about why everyone has a stake in this war.

MA, you see things your way, i see things mine. I would fully expect someone from Iraq to say the exact opposite. It's called Nationalism. And yes, i fully adhere to my previous statement. I WOULD RATHER SEE ONE MILLON IRAQIS FACE DOWN IN THE SAND THAN SEE ONE AMERICAN FALL TO THE HAND OF A TERRORIST SUCH AS SADDAM.

That is, again, your own liberal opinion. Childish in its own right, huh?

Great!

Already there aren't enough Iraqis for you to see your stupid objective achieved.

For someone that loves to spout such intellectually disguised liberal garbage, i thought you would be smart enough to catch on.