US Used Napalm On Iraq...
Every time I want to get to the other memos from Britain, I find more about ghastly behavior from the Bush administration that we were lied to about...apparently so were the British.US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war
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."
Now, the story is that the new napalm was not used around civilians but I do not see how they can possibly defend that argument since...
1. The weapons are 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.
2. Witnesses in Iraq, including several doctors, have reported wounds that could only be decribed as chemical burns...this includes the aftermath of Fallujah.
So, not only are we contaminating the country and people (including our people) with Depleted Uranium but we have also been using chemical weapons that are anything but precise to subjegate the Iraqi people. To top it off, we lied to our partners in crime about what we were doing.
For anyone who does not remember Vietnam, I suggest you researh and find pictures of what our napalm did to the civilian population then. Our press had a spine back then and showed us what effect these outlawed chemical weapons had.
There is one particular picture that comes to mind...two children running down the road after their village was napalmed...one of them was a little girl whose body was burning from the napalm that stuck to her skin as she ran screaming down the road.
There is now proof that we have also done the same to Iraqis.
After the docomentation that we have seen from all of the Downing Street Memos and this new revelation, I do not understand how any reasonable citizen can not be ashamed of the immorality in our Oval office.
I was always offended by the line ...
Napalm Sticks To Kids
Apparently Bush and his cohorts do not mind.
Additions to address comments posted here
LOL Some people will make all excuses they can think of just to justify this whole mess...sad.
Napalm is a mixture of benzene (21%), gasoline (33%), and polystyrene (46%). Benzene is a normal component of gasoline (about 2%).
...
Heated polystyrene softens at about 185 F. At higher temperatures it turns back into styrene, the chemical from which it was made. Styrene has been tested as toxic to rats. In air, polystyrene melts and burns with a yellow, sooty flame. Styrene itself has a sharp, unpleasant smell that is easy to recognize.
If polystyrene turns back into the chemical it was made from when it aquires enough heat (as when it explodes and burns hot enough to melt a person), how can you say it can't be classified as using chemicals?
Do not mind bursting your bubble here but NAPALM IS CLASSIFIED AS A CHEMICAL WEAPON. Look it up...Wikipedia Encyclopedia
As far as the Brit report being false...no, not false. It happened earlier and we are just now hearing about it. You can find the same denials from the US all over the place...example
The Mk 77 Mod 5 firebombs are incendiary devices with a function indentical to earlier Mk 77 napalm weapons. Instead of the gasoline and benzene fuel, the Mk 77 Mod 5 firebomb uses kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, hundreds of partially loaded Mk77 Mod5 firebombs were stored on pre-positioned ammunition ships overseas. Those ships were unloaded in Kuwait during the weeks preceding the war.
There was a report on Al-Jazeera on December, 14, 2001 that the US was using napalm at Tora Bora in Afghanistan. In response, General Tommy Franks said "We're not using -- we're not using the old napalm in Tora Bora."
The US Department of Defense denied the use of napalm during Operation Iraqi Freedom. A rebuttal letter from the US Department of Defense had been in fact sent to the Australian Sydney Morning Herald newspaper which had claimed that napalm had been used in Iraq.
The comment about White Phosphorous not being a chemical weapon...you should look something up before declaring your views beause it takes on the classification as a chemical weapon when used in the MK-77 Dirty Bomb.
So YES WE ARE USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS after denying it and it has been banned by every civilized country on the planet.
Depleted Uranium caused the same kind of contamination as Enriched Uranium if used in massive amounts (unlike EU), which we have done. Does Hiroshima ring a bell? Nagasaki? When we lit up those cities we caused rodioactive contamination that still has effect on the residents today. During the years I lived in Japan I saw some of the after effects and learned a good deal more than I wanted to know...cancer rates, contamination of water and soil. Radiation contamination pollutes all it touches.
If you believe it not harmful, let them put some in your back yard so your kids can discover the wonderful effect of DU.
BTW...where is your evidence that Saddam used DU weapons...I would like to read it?
Looks like we are the ones who are not too awfully civilized.
Making excuses and trying to justify this administration of the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis will not wash...no matter how you slice it.
posted by Myst @ 11:01 AM
17 Comments:
Here is a the story on this.
Meet Willy Pete as I know it to be.
Thanks for the info.
To me it's just more proof of the immorality of those who sent us to Iraq.
Myst, here is a US Army request for bid on MK77 firebombs. The response date was February 2004. It's an order for 993 of them.
http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2004/01-January/15-Jan-2004/FBO-00503151.htm
This ordnance is still in use by the US military, and it has been (in some form) since 1947. I'm not really sure why you find this so controversial. The US makes no secret that we use this type of ordnance. I suspect that story about lying to our British allies is a fabrication... it doesn't make sense taht we would tell the British that we hadn't or wouldn't use ordnance that we clearly DO use, as a matter of routine.
Napalm is not classified as a chemical weapon, by the way. It *is* classified as an inhumane weapon, and I personally feel that US forces shouldn't use it.
DU armor piercing tank rounds have been used by every military on earth - including Saddam's!! - for decades. I'm not real clear on why you feel this is an atrocity of some kind... I think you've been mislead.
Madtom... Willy Pete = WP = White Phosphorous. This is what is used to produce SMOKE, for screening and for marking targets. It has been used for this purpose by militaries around the world for 100 years :)
White Phosphorous is ALSO not a chemical weapon. White Phosphorous is not even classified as an inhumane weapon. In fact, white phosphorous is not even classified as a weapon, period :)
*sigh*
Really, Myst, I could easily be persuaded to support a campaign to end the use of Napalm, but I'm not going to be pulled into a conspiracy theory campaign. You lose support from people who might go along with your positions when you engage in that sort of thing.
"White Phosphorous is ALSO not a chemical weapon."
Exactly, that has been my position all along. This canard has been going around sense the attack on Falluja began, and it was a canard then and it's one today.
MK77 is an "incendiary bomb"
Not a chemical weapon by any stretch of the imagination.
And the reports you have sighted to date are just that, reports nothing more.
I pulled this from another site that has similar claims as you:
" a Pentagon spokesman said: I can confirm , that MK 77 bombs were dropped at the Kuwaiti-Iraqi-border."
Apparently not of Falluja but the border to ignite and remove fare traps that saddam left for our troops.
Would you have preferred that our troops died in saddams fire traps?
"Depleted Uranium caused the same kind of contamination as Enriched Uranium if used in massive amounts "
This is not true either, I do know the truth, but I am going to withhold it till you do your homework... there is a danger from DU, but only under certain conditions...
"Do not mind bursting your bubble here but NAPALM IS CLASSIFIED AS A CHEMICAL WEAPON. Look it up...Wikipedia Encyclopedia"
Please quote from that source where it said that napalm was a chemical weapon?
The first paragraph at the top of the page states
Napalm is a flammable, gasoline-based weapon invented in 1942. The name is a portmanteau word for naphthenic palmitic acids. It produces horrific wounds, and as a chemical weapon it is considered an illegal Weapon of Mass Destruction
You guys are getting creative with the excuses...
Would you have preferred that our troops died in saddams fire traps
He must have hid those pesky WMD in the closet because they were not under the table at the journalism conference...George looked. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? No worse than your statement.
Still does not excuse it.
Look it up...not from a Pentagon spokesman, the kind that will deny something on a play of words only to have to admit to it later...do a search on NAPALM, chemical weapons or MK-77 Dirty Bomb and you will find all sorts of things, most unbiased.
A weapon that chemically burns and is toxic is a chemical weapon and no amount of word play, calling them an incindiary weapon included can take away from what they are. The US did use Napalm in Falluja and there is documentation and pictures to prove it.
Like those who are so desperate to call the DSM forgeries, they have been authenticated by several different sources independently.
DU isn't toxic in large quantities, huh? You will withhold your information? S U R E... The WHO states that large quantities of DU can have the same affacts as a tiny amount of EU.
The US has a habit of writing scientific reports to reflect their agendas, or have you not kept up (it's all over the news)
Yeah...you got proof...put up or hush up. Otherwise you only have rhetoric and are wasting our time.
Myst... it's GASOLINE!!! Gasoline is a chemical weapon? Gasoline is a weapon of mass destruction?
OK, gonna be all sneaky and clever here and use your own citation against you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons#Classes_of_chemical_warfare_agents
specifically, this quote at the bottom:
#There are other chemicals used militarily that are not technically
#considered to be "chemical weapon agents," such as:
#Incendiary or explosive chemicals (such as napalm, extensively used
#by the United States in Vietnam, or dynamite) because their destructive
#effects are primarily due to fire or explosive force, and not direct
#chemical action.
Now, for my personal experience, coming from my training in Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare. According to the US military, tehre are 3 types of chemical agents.
1) Nerve agent - such as VX or Sarin
2) Blister agent - such as mustard gas (also includes tear gas, despite what wikipedia says)
3) Blood agent - such as cyanide (traditional poisons)
##Would you have preferred that our troops died in saddams fire traps
#He must have hid those pesky WMD in the closet
Myst, do you even read these websites that people put up for evidence? Saddam was filling trenches with oil during the first gulf war, with the intention of igniting the oil when his positions were attacked. US Marines were dropping napalm on those oil filled trenches to burn off the oil. Nothing to do with WMD.
#MK-77 Dirty Bomb
A dirty bomb is one which spreads radiation via conventional explosion. Nothing to with the MK77!
#DU isn't toxic in large quantities, huh?
Myst, you realize tank crews spend YEARS in close proximity to Sabot(DU) rounds in their tanks, right? They carry those rounds, they load them in their guns, they fire them (in large quantities!) at targets on their bases, they SLEEP next to the ammo compartments where those rounds are stored! This has been going of for decades! If there was a radiation risk, don't you think we'd have heard of it by now?
Myst, you are making the wrong arguments. I spent 6 years in the infantry. I used to have nightmares where I'd be looking up and see a napalm cannister falling towards me. There are horrific weapons that we use, weapons that are grossly cruel, and I certainly support a movement to ban such weapons. But I can't support your ideas when you publish so much misinformation!
I wish to correct myself...thank you craig. The above should read MK-77 DUMB bombs, not dirty bombs. I was not deliberately trying to misinform, I was a bit distracted and I apologize for the misstep.
Napalm. The name is a portmanteau word for naphthenic palmitic acids...in other words, it is a blend of substances. It is not just gasoline. We are not talking about a molatave coctail here, gasoline does not stick to anything. Different chemicals are blended along with gasoline to turn it into a gel form that sticks to anything it comes in contact with. Chemical weapons include substaces that are toxic and NAPALM is toxic when it burns...so is almost all oil based substance which gasoline and KEROSINE are in this context.
Gasoline is a witch's brew of organic chemicals, many of which are toxic, polystyrene turns back into the chemical it is made from when it gets hot enough and is toxic and benzine (already a gasoline additive) is added and it is also toxic.
I am not supplying misinformation. I was a military dependent during the Gulf War in 91 and one of my closer friends to this day is a demolition expert in the military. I saw and learned a great deal being married to the military for 15 years plus was raised in an Army town. Do not get on a superior high horse here...six years does not come close to the 30 years around it I have spent. Navy Seals, Rangers and all have been part of my life for the most of it and it would curl your hair what I have been party to.
If you want to talk about DU being harmless then you can explain why we have had soldiers test positve for radiation from it and why it is believed to be the cause of Gulf War Syndrome from our escapades in 1991. Can you explain why, if DU is harmless, are there many sites such as this that not only testify otherwise but also show pictures of deformities to not only Iraqi newborns but US newborns who's fathers were exposed to DU? I am still waiting for you to tell us when Saddam used DU weapons...well...
Oh...sorry...you think fabrications were made about the US denying the use of NAPALM too...the Brits are signatories on the treaty to ban the use of NAPALM and they could not legally agree to fighting alongside someone who they knew was willingly using it. You should do your homework because that could create International Crimes for the British Parlaiment. That is precisely why the US told the Brits that we were not using it.
There seems to be a pattern here with tom and craig...both are convinced that THEY know the truth but yet tom says "I am going to withhold it till you do your homework" (my info on DU and EU came from the World Health Organization and other places...I did do homework) and craig runs the rhetoric of whatever the military says is correct, reported lies are fabricated and Saddam used DU weapons...let's not forget that NAPALM, a weaponed internationally banned, is only used by ONE country...the USA. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets. The US also has used the MK77 inside Iraq, not only the border with Kuwait...example.
Have you been to Iraq? Have you seen the reality of what is being done or even real pictures of it? Are you a supporter of the invasion, and if so, for what purpose? I have heard your arguments and your opinion that I am misinformed. I get my news from as many sources as I can read because I know that the hawks who led us into this mess will justify by any means and lie if necessary to do what they want done. Being involved with the military taught me well that you are not always told the truth...like Cheney and his statement about the insurgency being in it's last throes...he doesn't have a clue.
Not taking somebody's word for everything has allowed me to be an independent thinker and my intelligence is constantly challenged into searching for answers. I would not, though, tell an obviously intelligent person that they are misinformed while making ridiculous statements or statements that have no merit.
Saddam and DU weapons...when?
"(my info on DU and EU came from the World Health Organization and other places...I did do homework)"
And you have yet to mention the real danger of DU, besides of course being shoot :) This is a clue.
And as far as I know explains the incidences of harm to our troops you mentioned
Your source mentioned the bridge crossings, and troops adjacent to the invasion route at the begging of the war, not the fight for fallujah. But you said:
"2. Witnesses in Iraq, including several doctors, have reported wounds that could only be decribed as chemical burns...this includes the aftermath of Fallujah."
and then used a report that sited the use of M77 somewhere else as support.
Misinformation campaign, or sloppy work, maybe even a mistake. I'll give you the benefit of doubt but not everyone will.
I believe I gave parts of my reasoning for the invasion in another thread.
I don't see why this conversation has to be so adversarial, but whatever.
then used a report that sited the use of M77 somewhere else as support
This article was not used as documentation connected with Fallujah. It was in reference to craig's statements that we used NAPALM just on the Kuwait/Iraq border. The story I linked to is an example that we also used NAPALM inside of Iraq. craig was also making the case that the oil in trenches was the first Gulf war...this is not the first Gulf so certain aspects of his argument are rendered moot. Nostalgia for using NAPALM in a previous instance is not sufficient motivation or excuse to use it now.
Then you suggest I may be misinformed which I am not. I have enough information from many different sources and am able to debate with the best of them, providing they have real information to debate with.
You have offered nothing on your DU opinion other than to say you know more than I do but you won't tell...not very inspiring or conducive to realistic or relevent discussion or debate.
If you do not wish for a conversation to become adversarial, you might try not talking down to people. To react to a total stranger like they are ignorant and you are the brains of the coversation is not a good start.
If you have a clue, good for you. There are many dangers of DU besides being in close enough proximity to get hit with shrapnel. The longest lasting damage is from exposure to it. It is made from spent Uranium and therefore has the ability to contaminate air, water, land and people. It raises the risk of all forms of cancer, birth defects, chronic ailments, premature death and many other things from exposure to it. If that is not inhumane enough for you, the contamination of the land can last for 1000 years, the air can carry it just about anywhere it can blow to contaminate others and the water becomes unsafe for use along with the fish and everything else within being contaminated.
There is much more to DU. If you know something else you are welcome to list it.
I appreciate the benefit of the doubt but it is obvious here that I have been very clear and do not need it. I have not given any misinformation and if I misstated something I also corrected myself...I have not made any kind of statement in which I make assertions that I know more than someone else or that I have a pious right to judge anyone.
"If you have a clue, good for you."
That is not what I meant to say. What I was trying to say is that the danger involved with the DU starts after you shoot the round. I did a quick search and found this:
Depleted Uranium Munitions
This report explains that the danger comes from the DU being aerosolized after impact. In other words beathing in the dust that is created by the impact with the target.
By the way many people have complained that my writing is assertive, your not the first. But I don't do it on purpose. It's just the way it comes out.
Yes, Madtom, that's my understanding of the hazards of DU as well. It is toxic as a HEAVY METAL, in the same way that lead is toxic. It's not a radiation danger. And we use lots of lead projectiles - in fact lead has been the material of choice for bullets as long as firearms have existed.
Myst, calling jellied gasoline a chemical weapon is semantics. All explosives are chemical weapons by that definition. Are you really trying to claim that anything that causes a chemical reaction - like an explosion! - is a banned weapon of mass destruction? Come on, Myst. I allready TOLD you why Napalm is banned for use against personnel. It's classified as a "weapon of cruelty" under the International Laws of Land Warfare. That's why it's classified as a defoliant and is used (supposedly) against non-living targets. To use Napalm against human beings *is* illegal - you are absolutely right about that. I want you to win this argument, but you aren't going to make the case when you call claim the wrong banned status for Napalm :)
I'm not going to have the discussion about my military credentials with somebody who wasn't in the military. And no, being a dependent doesn't count, sorry.
Really, Myst, I don't oppose you on the arguments you are making, I oppose you in the way you are making them. I've marked targets 100 times - with White Phosphorous mortar rounds BTW! - for Napalm strikes, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that the US military DID use Napalm in a banned manner (against human targets) as a matter of routine in the past. They probably still do. I'd like to see that stopped. If it hasn't, already.
Depleted uranium is chemically toxic. It is an extremely dense, hard metal, and can cause chemical poisoning to the body in the same way as can lead or any other heavy metal. However, depleted uranium is also radiologically hazardous, as it spontaneously burns on impact, creating tiny aerosolised glass particles which are small enough to be inhaled. These uranium oxide particles emit all types of radiation, alpha, beta and gamma, and can be carried in the air over long distances. Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and the presence of depleted uranium ceramic aerosols can pose a long term threat to human health and the environment.
What is Depleted Uranium?
As a product otherwise requiring long term storage as low level radioactive waste, depleted uranium can be obtained cheaply. It is useful for its extremely high density, which is only slightly less than that of tungsten. As well as a lower initial cost, depleted uranium is easier to roll, machine and cast than tungsten. However, it has extremely poor corrosion properties (tending to spall on exposure to air) and since it is toxic and radioactive the facilities for processing it need to monitor and filter dust and airborne particles. One disadvantage of DU is that it needs to be correctly handled when an object containing it is scrapped. The uranium is normally leased from the manufacturer and subsequently returned at the end of the object's life.
...
Military DU studies mainly evaluated external exposure, but other studies take inhalation risk into consideration. These studies indicate that DU passes into humans more easily than previously thought after battlefield use. (Radioactive particles absorbed into the body are far more harmful than a similar background radiation level outside the body, due to their immediate proximity to delicate structures such as DNA, bone marrow and the like)
...
The U.S. Army acknowledges the potential hazards of DU in a training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."
Wiikipedia
The second link has both sides of the DU debate but even the Army manual notes DU contamination as hazaedouse. Does this mean you know more about DU than the Army?
I know at least two soldiers who have tested positive for radiation. I dare you to try and tell them that DU is not harmful...
"Aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects. [DU is] a low level alpha radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage. [...] Short-term effects of high doses can result in death, while long term effects of low doses have been linked to cancer. [...] Our conclusion regarding the health and environmental acceptability of DU penetrators assume both controlled use and the presence of excellent health physics management practices. Combat conditions will lead to the uncontrolled release of DU. [...] The conditions of the battlefield, and the long term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU kinetic penetrators for military applications."
- Excerpts from the July 1990 Science and Applications International Corporation report: ' Kinetic Energy Penetrator Environment and Health Considerations', as included in Appendix D - US Army Armaments, Munitions and Chemical Command report: 'Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, July 1990'
"There has been and continues to be a concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment. Therefore, if no one makes a case for the effectiveness of DU on the battlefield, DU rounds may become politically unacceptable and thus be deleted from the arsenal. I believe we should keep this sensitive issue in mind when action reports are written."
- Lt. Col. M.V. Ziehmn, Los Alamos National Laboratory memorandum, March 1st 1991
“DU is a low-level radioactive waste, and, therefore, must be disposed of in a licensed repository. [...] No international law, treaty, regulation, or custom requires the United States to remediate the Persian Gulf war battlefields."
- Report by the US Army Environmental Policy Institute: 'Health and Consequences of Depleted Uranium use in the US army', June 1995
There are many hazards to DU and the only ones who claim otherwise have something to lose...like goverments would be subject to War Crime charges, etc. It is nuclear waste...the same substance Iran seeks to fuel their ractors. It is radioactive, and the air dispersal in an arid area like Iraq can only bring tragedy with it.
I understand your view tom.
Myst, I give up. Now you've gone and said SMOKE GRENADES are weapons of mass destruction! Really, I give up... I don't know what to say.
Good luck in your mind boggling crusade.
Hey, Myst, on a different topic... since I gave up on the idea that my farts are a chemical weapon and all...
Do you realize you just "proved" Saddam *did* have weapons of mass destruction? See, it's not so funny when you claim that smoke grenades are WMD is it? :p
The bastard had evil smoke munitions by the ton, all along!
Post a Comment
<< Home