Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Ultimate In Hypocrisy

  1. Jun 24, 2005 #1

    Art

    User Avatar

    Having gone to war on the grounds that Iraq had illegal weapons, US forces are using illegal chemical weapons against Iraqis. The US gov't lied to their allies last January when asked by the British gov't if allegations of it's use of Napalm or similar substances (which was banned by the UN in 1980) were true.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4116262.stm

    And more hypocrisy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 24, 2005 #2

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Where does that article state that the US are using illegal chemical weapons against Iraqis, and what does napalm (which wasn't used) have to do with chemical weapons anyway?
     
  4. Jun 24, 2005 #3

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The firebombs are pretty much napalm. It's a combustable gel munition. I had no idea they were treated as a chemical weapon though. I see no reason for them to be trated any differently than, say a cluster bomb. I fail to see what the big to do is with the Brits other than someone not knowing we used some.
     
  5. Jun 24, 2005 #4

    Art

    User Avatar

    Mark 77 firebombs which are the new improved form of napalm.
    As I stated the UN (yes that same group who the US govt says it's rulings are sacrosanct providing they concur with the US gov't opinions of course) declared fuel-gel mixture munitions illegal in 1980.

    http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/...694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html

    http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6772

    http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p15b.htm

    BTW What do you think chemical weapons are??
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2005
  6. Jun 24, 2005 #5
    Chemical weapons are 'usually' defined as those causing damage upon contact with the gaseous, solid, or liquid form of the weapon. In this case, Napalm does not do the damage by itself. The combustion of the napalm does the damage---the fire is what hurts not the isolated chemical.

    Napalm would be a horrendous way to bite the bullet IMO and I see no reason to use it in Iraq. There are too many horror stories concerning the use of Napalm as a weapon and a defoliant in Vietnam. Granted death from above instead of send GI's into the heat of battle is preferred. Kill the bad guys but don't give them the same opportunity is the standard OP. Call be crazy, if we have a good enough clue as to the location of the bad guys then it seems a conventional munition would suffice.

    The use of Napalm here is kind of funny though (ironic funny not ha ha funny) because it does apparently violate UN mandates(I'll look into this when I get a chance). The question becomes is the US a signatory on the particular treaty banning the use of Napalm?
     
  7. Jun 24, 2005 #6

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sorry, I missed you stating that!

    Weapons whose primary method of action do not involve explosive force (nerve agents, like sarin and VX, blood agents like HCN, lachrymatory agents like tear gas, blister agents like mustard, plus a few other classes.) I had no idea that napalm was considered to be a chemical weapon, I just thought it was an incendiary.


    Edit: I've just seen that napalm is not classed as a chemical weapon according to Wiki:

    In any case, nobody's disputing the rather nasty effect of napalm (and its relatives which don't appear to have been specifically banned).
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2005
  8. Jun 24, 2005 #7
    i never heard any of this stuff on a major news station, not even the liberal ones. are you sure that this stuff is true? some of your sources look like radical liberal mags/tabloids. i am sure that if it was true, it would be all over newsweek CNN BBC the NY times etc.

    fibonacci
     
  9. Jun 24, 2005 #8

    Art

    User Avatar

    Quite sure. The BBC is hardly a liberal rag. It is the British National Broadcasting Corp.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2005
  10. Jun 24, 2005 #9
    Let Google News become your friend:

    http://news.google.com/news?q=NAPALM&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&sa=N&tab=wn

    Top story is from the BBC
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4116262.stm
    this was posted in the opening post of this thread.
     
  11. Jun 24, 2005 #10

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I do remember hearing this a while back. It was something that didn't last for very long for whatever reasons. I remember not thinking anything of it because I didn't realize that the use of napalm was a no-no. I wonder what our military's reason for going against that ruling is...Do we even recognize it? I am sure that there was a reason to use it over other conventional munitions. The situation must have dictated it's use.

    Also, why is this being brought up now? I could have sworn that napalm was used in the first gulf war and I don't remember any kind of backlash then.
     
  12. Jun 24, 2005 #11

    Art

    User Avatar

    The reason it is an issue now is because when rumours of it's use circulated late last year and it was raised in the House of Commons the US gov't assured T. Blair they had not used this weapon. This information was then communicated to parliament. The British Defense Minister has now had to tell parliament he inadvertantly misled them back then, as he was lied to by the US.
     
  13. Jun 24, 2005 #12

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Some seem to think that napalm carries such a stigma purely because of its use in Vietnam.
     
  14. Jun 24, 2005 #13

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There are always two sides to every story, to believe in either extreme is to be foolish. Let's not be foolish.

    http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html
     
  15. Jun 24, 2005 #14

    Art

    User Avatar

  16. Jun 24, 2005 #15

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Did you read the link? They've denied using any incendiary weapons in Fallujah or against any insurgents. They admit to using mark-77 against the initial Iraqi defense forces in 2003, a usage which the site says is not illegal. It doesn't seem that there has been any wavering on either of these claims.
     
  17. Jun 24, 2005 #16

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I must have missed the link you posted to the official US announcement of this, can you repost the link to the official US government announcement?
     
  18. Jun 24, 2005 #17

    Art

    User Avatar

    No you didn't miss it as I didn't post one?? However I did provide a British link. Are you suggesting the BBC are wrong or that they fabricated the Defence Minister's address to parliament?
     
  19. Jun 24, 2005 #18

    Art

    User Avatar

    Excerpt from the BBC article;
     
  20. Jun 24, 2005 #19

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The BBC is just posting stories, like any other news media, they are not a government source. So, you have no official government source.
     
  21. Jun 24, 2005 #20

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Some little details that haven't yet surfaced in this thread, if Wikipedia is to be believed (emphasis mine):

    "Use of incendiary bombs against civilian populations was banned in the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The US has not signed this agreement although they did retire use of napalm."

    Dunno if they matter, but complete pictures are usually better pictures.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The Ultimate In Hypocrisy
Loading...