On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:24:18 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/10/17 11:14 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2017 10:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/17 10:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2017 9:30 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/17 7:50 AM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:11:58 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 11:57 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:13:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Napalm's "official" purpose in Vietnam was that of a defoliant.
Agreed, it's a incendiary mixture but is effective in clearing
cover in dense growth. The fact that it may have also been used to
target the enemy hiding in the growth is a misuse of it's official
purpose.

Nobody really believed that. It was just what they told people,
until
the Wash Po put that naked little girl running down the road, on the
cover.
Was LeMay defoliating Tokyo?


I conceded that I was wrong about the use of Napalm in Vietnam after
John provided first hand information on it's use. The images I
recalled
were those of our airplanes dropping it on areas heavily covered with
trees or natural growth that hid the Viet Cong from view.

On the other hand, it did defoliate rather well. LOL



Is that the "Christian" belief? What's funny about dropping napalm that
would earn an LOL? You are a weird little duck.





I wonder if you were in a situation where it was your ass or the
enemy's, what choice would you make?


I wouldn't be LOL'ing it. There's nothing funny about using that stuff
in a wartime setting.

I am *sure* you wouldn't be laughing. I suspect you'd suddenly get
religious and pray for a couple of F-4 Phantoms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8BgRUTJKIA




Just another example of our use of chemical warfare.

Wrong. But again, you know not of which you speak. I suppose it makes you feel good just to say
something even if it's f'ing stupid, eh Krause?