News The Ultimate In Hypocrisy

  • Thread starter Art
  • Start date
A

Art

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 by a moderator:

brewnog

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,662
7
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?
 

FredGarvin

Science Advisor
5,016
6
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.
 
A

Art

brewnog said:
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?
Mark 77 firebombs which are the new improved form of napalm.
The inflammable fuel in Mark-77 fire bombs is thickened with slightly different chemicals, and is believed to contain oxidizers, which make it harder to extinguish than Napalm-B. But Mark-77s are referred to as 'napalm' in some current US inventories and public affairs documents.
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.

FALLUJAH NAPALMED

Nov 28 2004

US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told?
By Paul Gilfeather Political Editor

US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah.

News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.

And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14920109&method=full&siteid=106694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html

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

Chemical weapons such as mustard gas, nerve gas and napalm have been banned by international convention since the 1980s. The main justification made by the US, British and Australian governments in March 2003 for their invasion of Iraq was the claim — since proven to have been a complete fabrication — that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed stockpiles of these banned weapons and was preparing to use them, via the al Qaeda terrorist network, to attack the United States.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p15b.htm [Broken]

BTW What do you think chemical weapons are??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
690
0
Art said:
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/tm_objectid=14920109&method=full&siteid=106694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html

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


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

BTW What do you think chemical weapons are??
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brewnog

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,662
7
Art said:
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.
Sorry, I missed you stating that!

Art said:
BTW What do you think chemical weapons are??
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:

Wiki said:
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.
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:
Art said:
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/tm_objectid=14920109&method=full&siteid=106694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html

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


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

BTW What do you think chemical weapons are??
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Art

1 said:
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
Quite sure. The BBC is hardly a liberal rag. It is the British National Broadcasting Corp.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
690
0
1 said:
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
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.
 

FredGarvin

Science Advisor
5,016
6
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.
 
A

Art

FredGarvin said:
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.
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.
 

brewnog

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,662
7
FredGarvin said:
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.
Some seem to think that napalm carries such a stigma purely because of its use in Vietnam.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,464
2,278
FredGarvin said:
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.
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 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Art

Evo said:
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 [Broken]
So are you suggesting that the US were telling the truth back in January when they denied using napalm (or it's modern equiv.) and are now lying when they say they did?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,655
4
Art said:
So are you suggesting that the US were telling the truth back in January when they denied using napalm (or it's modern equiv.) and are now lying when they say they did?
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.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,464
2,278
Art said:
So are you suggesting that the US were telling the truth back in January when they denied using napalm (or it's modern equiv.) and are now lying when they say they did?
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?
 
A

Art

Evo said:
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?
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?
 
A

Art

loseyourname said:
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.
Excerpt from the BBC article;
Mr Cohen asked in January whether the firebombs had been used by coalition forces in Iraq.

Mr Ingram replied in a written answer: "The United States have confirmed to us that they have not used Mark 77 firebombs, which are essentially napalm canisters, in Iraq at any time.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,464
2,278
Art said:
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?
The BBC is just posting stories, like any other news media, they are not a government source. So, you have no official government source.
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,829
14
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.
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"The Ultimate In Hypocrisy" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top