Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/9/17 4:16 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:57:59 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but
nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as
napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people.
Sheesh.



Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is...

"Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a
gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was
initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later
primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes
severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret
laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser.
Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World
War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on
Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and
Vietnam War."

You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs.

I've already stated it was used as a weapon, but not as a 'chemical weapon'. As stated above, it was
an incendiary weapon. Napalm is not windborn as is mustard gas and sarin and most other 'chemical'
weapons. It's the windborn trait that makes chemical weapons so effective against large numbers of
people at a very small cost.



What kind of bull**** is that? You are really into splitting hairs.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/9/17 4:18 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 4:14 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 4:13 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 3:57 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies."
What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are
not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but
the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear
weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead.
Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh,
and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not
technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned
but
nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as
napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people.
Sheesh.



Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm
is...

"Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a
gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was
initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later
primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes
severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret
laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis
Fieser.
Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World
War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on
Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and
Vietnam War."

You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs.

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.


Oh. Napalm's "official" use. Well, that explains it. I hope you have a
pair of rubber hip boots. We are as guilty of using chemical warfare as
Syria.


Better watch out for some North Korean Tomahawks over your house tonight.



Someone on Facebook posted the coordinates of Mar-a-Lago... :)

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:19:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/9/2017 4:16 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:57:59 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but
nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as
napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people.
Sheesh.



Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is...

"Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a
gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was
initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later
primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes
severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret
laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser.
Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World
War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on
Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and
Vietnam War."

You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs.

I've already stated it was used as a weapon, but not as a 'chemical weapon'. As stated above, it was
an incendiary weapon. Napalm is not windborn as is mustard gas and sarin and most other 'chemical'
weapons. It's the windborn trait that makes chemical weapons so effective against large numbers of
people at a very small cost.



John, where was napalm usually dropped?

If I say, "On the ground", will you be ****ed?

Napalm was effective against enemy that were dug in or under cover, or against what were thought to
be ammo/supply storage facilities.

We dropped it on areas where the land mines and booby traps were so prevalent that taking dozers
with Rome plow blades in to clear the area was a scary proposition.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:25:40 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 4:16 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:57:59 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but
nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as
napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people.
Sheesh.



Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is...

"Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a
gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was
initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later
primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes
severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret
laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser.
Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World
War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on
Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and
Vietnam War."

You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs.

I've already stated it was used as a weapon, but not as a 'chemical weapon'. As stated above, it was
an incendiary weapon. Napalm is not windborn as is mustard gas and sarin and most other 'chemical'
weapons. It's the windborn trait that makes chemical weapons so effective against large numbers of
people at a very small cost.



What kind of bull**** is that? You are really into splitting hairs.

You see no difference between windborn and not windborn?

Again, you demonstrate your stupidity.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/9/2017 4:39 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:19:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/9/2017 4:16 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:57:59 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but
nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as
napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people.
Sheesh.



Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is...

"Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a
gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was
initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later
primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes
severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret
laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser.
Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World
War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on
Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and
Vietnam War."

You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs.

I've already stated it was used as a weapon, but not as a 'chemical weapon'. As stated above, it was
an incendiary weapon. Napalm is not windborn as is mustard gas and sarin and most other 'chemical'
weapons. It's the windborn trait that makes chemical weapons so effective against large numbers of
people at a very small cost.



John, where was napalm usually dropped?

If I say, "On the ground", will you be ****ed?

Napalm was effective against enemy that were dug in or under cover, or against what were thought to
be ammo/supply storage facilities.

We dropped it on areas where the land mines and booby traps were so prevalent that taking dozers
with Rome plow blades in to clear the area was a scary proposition.



Then I retract as being in error that it was used primarily as a
defoliant. That was my understanding although I knew it was misused.
Still, it's not a banned "weapon" as nerve gases are.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 3:16:27 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 4:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 4:03 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 3:55 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 3:30 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 1:44:16 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies."
What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are
not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but
the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear
weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead.
Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not
technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.

You're gasping for air Harry.



Bull****. I'm aware of the history of the use of Agent Orange and other
substances used by the USA in the area of herbicidal warfare, and the
attempts, successful at the time, of the USA to keep Agent Orange from
being classified as a chemical or biological weapon. Millions and
millions of SE Asians were made ill by our use of Agent Orange.

The attempts of you and others here to state that our hands are clean in
use of chemical weapons is pathetic.


Nobody said their use was "clean" or that they were not misused.

Greg posed the question as to why
napalm and phosphorus were "legal" for use but sarin (a nerve gas) is
illegal. The legality or illegality is governed by international law.

That was the question that started this thread. You've taken it off in
another direction entirely, as usual.



Not at all. The point is that "we" are not the innocents in the use of
chemical weapons. We've used them, and knowingly. Their use is
horrific, no matter who uses them. Our hands are not clean.


Who the **** said they were? Geezus Harry, if you are going to play,
pay attention, will you?

As long as Harry can throw the subject he'll always feel on top.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:38:19 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The difference is in their purposes and intended uses.
Although napalm and white phosphorous can certainly cause injury or
death, their primary purposes are not to kill people. Chemical weapons
like Sarin gas are.

Huh? Of course WP and Napalm are designed to kill people and in a
horrible burning alive type of death.
Weapons of war are designed to kill or cause grievous injury.
There are no "phasers on stun" weapons in anyone's arsenal.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:41:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.


I guess "ordinance" was not your forte in the Navy.
Napalm was developed in WWII to incinerate Japanese cities and in the
next 2 Asian wars it was used as an anti personnel weapon.
WP was purely a terror weapon, meant to cause wounds by chunks of
flaming phosphorus that would not go out. It simply has to be exposed
to air, at room temperature to burn.
I understand they were able to lie to themselves in Geneva in the 20s
and not outlaw WP but Napalm did not exist the last time this protocol
was updated. In the 60s they revisited it, there were some attempts to
include other things but it slipped away.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:44:13 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.

I suppose you could say the same thing about asbestos and PCBs

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:48:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The problem was that after Kuwait was liberated, we stayed in Saudi
and continued to bomb Iraq.
Personally I think we should have just told Saudi and the emirates to
defend themselves with all of that hardware we sold them. If they
wanted help, call the Israelis.



Knowing your Libertarian mindset I can understand your argument but most
don't see it that way. As I have mentioned before, the USA has a major
role and responsibility in the global balance of power. It's not
something we volunteered for but it has grown with us since the end of
WWII. It would be nice to stick our head in the sand and ignore the
rest of the world but it just isn't realistic.\


How has that been working out?
We keep deposing these dictators for humanitarian reasons and ending
up with a far worse humanitarian problem than they had before.
We killed Saddam and we have the worst refugee problem since WWII. Now
we think it would get better if we take out Assad.
.... and then what?
Is there a muslim Thomas Jefferson hiding somewhere that we have not
seen or are we just going to let another radical anti-American cleric
take over?

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:45:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but
nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as
napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people.
Sheesh.

The difference is we know Napalm kills. Agent Orange was sold as a
safe weed killer.
The 2-4-D in it is still for sale at Home Depot. It was the Dioxin
that caused the problem. In the 50s and early 60s, you could buy that
too, along with Chlordane and DDT. They were just another miracle
chemical from WWII.

Busy day at the office ...
 

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?

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Sun, 09 Apr 2017 16:16:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

I've already stated it was used as a weapon, but not as a 'chemical weapon'. As stated above, it was
an incendiary weapon. Napalm is not windborn as is mustard gas and sarin and most other 'chemical'
weapons. It's the windborn trait that makes chemical weapons so effective against large numbers of
people at a very small cost.

Actually, as a military weapon, the experience in WWI proved gas
wasn't really that effective. There were a number of cases where the
wind shifted a little and they ended up gassing themselves.
It is, at best, a terror weapon and that is why it was easy to get it
banned in 1925.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:19:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

John, where was napalm usually dropped?

My Marine buddy said they called it in when they were about to be over
run. The trick was being sure you got the guys chasing you and not get
hit yourself. More than a defoliant, it was a battlefield denial
weapon. Nobody is going to run through the fire to come get you.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/9/2017 11:45 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:48:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The problem was that after Kuwait was liberated, we stayed in Saudi
and continued to bomb Iraq.
Personally I think we should have just told Saudi and the emirates to
defend themselves with all of that hardware we sold them. If they
wanted help, call the Israelis.



Knowing your Libertarian mindset I can understand your argument but most
don't see it that way. As I have mentioned before, the USA has a major
role and responsibility in the global balance of power. It's not
something we volunteered for but it has grown with us since the end of
WWII. It would be nice to stick our head in the sand and ignore the
rest of the world but it just isn't realistic.\


How has that been working out?
We keep deposing these dictators for humanitarian reasons and ending
up with a far worse humanitarian problem than they had before.
We killed Saddam and we have the worst refugee problem since WWII. Now
we think it would get better if we take out Assad.
... and then what?
Is there a muslim Thomas Jefferson hiding somewhere that we have not
seen or are we just going to let another radical anti-American cleric
take over?


I didn't say we have all the answers. I said we have played a major
role in the global power balance since WWII. The issue is if we can
retreat from this role as you would like us to do or are we stuck with
it for our own security and that of our allies.

I have some Libertarian DNA but I also realize we can't pretend the rest
of the world doesn't exist or has no affect on us.

Busy day at the office ...
 

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.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/10/2017 12:04 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:19:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

John, where was napalm usually dropped?

My Marine buddy said they called it in when they were about to be over
run. The trick was being sure you got the guys chasing you and not get
hit yourself. More than a defoliant, it was a battlefield denial
weapon. Nobody is going to run through the fire to come get you.


I never saw it used.

Busy day at the office ...
 

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

Busy day at the office ...
 

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.

Busy day at the office ...
 

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?

Busy day at the office ...
 

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.

Busy day at the office ...
 

8:30 AMKeyser Soze
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.
......


It is if you want to twist it to be Harry. You're really are quite unsuccessful at it though. But if it satisfies you then I suppose to you it's ok.
So now who's the weird little duck?

Busy day at the office ...
 

Tim wrote:
8:30 AMKeyser Soze
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.
.....


It is if you want to twist it to be Harry. You're really are quite
unsuccessful at it though. But if it satisfies you then I suppose to you it's ok.
So now who's the weird little duck?


What is LOlL about using napalm in war?

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

Busy day at the office ...
 

9:53 AMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
What is LOlL about using napalm in war?

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.
.....

I don't know what "LOIL" is so you tell me...

Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/10/17 11:04 AM, Tim wrote:
9:53 AMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
What is LOlL about using napalm in war?


LOIL is what you get when you type in on an iPhone without wearing your
reading glasses.
What is LOL about using napalm in war, Tim? You think napalm is funny?

Busy day at the office ...
 

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

Busy day at the office ...
 

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.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:13:19 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/10/2017 12:04 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:19:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

John, where was napalm usually dropped?

My Marine buddy said they called it in when they were about to be over
run. The trick was being sure you got the guys chasing you and not get
hit yourself. More than a defoliant, it was a battlefield denial
weapon. Nobody is going to run through the fire to come get you.


I never saw it used.


Me either but my old roomie was a force recon marine. He saw plenty.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 04:50:32 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

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

I bet the defoliation did not last that long. Tropical plants come
back very fast after a fire.

Busy day at the office ...
 

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

Just another example of our use of chemical warfare.

So was Waco, what's your point?

Busy day at the office ...
 

10:13 AMKeyser Soze
On 4/10/17 11:04 AM, Tim wrote:
9:53 AMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
What is LOlL about using napalm in war?


LOIL is what you get when you type in on an iPhone without wearing your
reading glasses.
What is LOL about using napalm in war, Tim? You think napalm is funny?
......

Yes when you consider how efficient a defolient it is. LOL!

Busy day at the office ...
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Is tough on the victim but was not know to cause human problems. My
brother is an Agent Orange vet. He and others looked at it as what it was
advertised. A defoliant. Not a nerve agent. But you would not admit that
ever.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/10/17 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:24:18 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Just another example of our use of chemical warfare.

So was Waco, what's your point?


That when we castigate other nations for using chemical warfare, we're
hypocritical.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/10/17 1:14 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Is tough on the victim but was not know to cause human problems. My
brother is an Agent Orange vet. He and others looked at it as what it was
advertised. A defoliant. Not a nerve agent. But you would not admit that
ever.


There were studies and reports available during the time Agent Orange
was used that indicated it was a severe health hazard to humans, but
since it was the US military that was using it, the reports were ignored.

Busy day at the office ...
 

wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:41:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.


I guess "ordinance" was not your forte in the Navy.
Napalm was developed in WWII to incinerate Japanese cities and in the
next 2 Asian wars it was used as an anti personnel weapon.
WP was purely a terror weapon, meant to cause wounds by chunks of
flaming phosphorus that would not go out. It simply has to be exposed
to air, at room temperature to burn.
I understand they were able to lie to themselves in Geneva in the 20s
and not outlaw WP but Napalm did not exist the last time this protocol
was updated. In the 60s they revisited it, there were some attempts to
include other things but it slipped away.


Napalm was not developed to incinerate Japanese cities. Neighbor growing
up was army in the South Pacific. He said when they got it, they first did
not realize how nasty it was, as they added the powder to gasoline and
mixed it in open barrels. They used it to root out Japanese in caves.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 1:17:56 PM UTC-4, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/17 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:24:18 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Just another example of our use of chemical warfare.

So was Waco, what's your point?


That when we castigate other nations for using chemical warfare, we're
hypocritical.

BS. Napalm and AO are not, by definition, chemical warfare.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:17:53 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/17 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:24:18 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Just another example of our use of chemical warfare.

So was Waco, what's your point?


That when we castigate other nations for using chemical warfare, we're
hypocritical.

Hey you are castigating the Russians for a couple of leaks (of fact)
during the election and we have had a concerted disinformation
infrastructure for over 100 years. We lie to foreigners and we lie to
America to advance the political goals of whomever is in charge, Dem
or Rep.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:24:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


There were studies and reports available during the time Agent Orange
was used that indicated it was a severe health hazard to humans, but
since it was the US military that was using it, the reports were ignored.

"The military" had nothing to do with it.
Dioxin (2,4,5-T) was still in wide use in the US until the 70s and not
really outlawed until the 80s. You could buy it at Hechingers up into
the early 70s. It was the "go to" herbicide in agriculture.
The more dangerous TCDD (2,3,7,8) is a byproduct of 2,4,5-T,
particularly if it is burned. That may explain the spotty occurrence
of "Agent Orange" disorder and why farmers were not affected as much
as soldiers. There was also a dosage factor. Farmers use as little as
necessary because it is not cheap. DoD used it by the truckload.
The other component of Agent Orange, 2,4-D is still available anywhere
they sell weed killer. It is in most "lawn safe" weed killers like
"weed n feed".

I suspect anything with "killer" or "...cide" in the name is going to
come with human health dangers and is not good for you.
Most military chemical agents started as insecticides. That is why it
is hard to control them. A country can quickly switch their bug spray
factory over to making poison gas and it is not even a major change,
just a slightly different recipe. The application method is also
similar.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:28:59 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:41:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.


I guess "ordinance" was not your forte in the Navy.
Napalm was developed in WWII to incinerate Japanese cities and in the
next 2 Asian wars it was used as an anti personnel weapon.
WP was purely a terror weapon, meant to cause wounds by chunks of
flaming phosphorus that would not go out. It simply has to be exposed
to air, at room temperature to burn.
I understand they were able to lie to themselves in Geneva in the 20s
and not outlaw WP but Napalm did not exist the last time this protocol
was updated. In the 60s they revisited it, there were some attempts to
include other things but it slipped away.


Napalm was not developed to incinerate Japanese cities. Neighbor growing
up was army in the South Pacific. He said when they got it, they first did
not realize how nasty it was, as they added the powder to gasoline and
mixed it in open barrels. They used it to root out Japanese in caves.

It was developed to burn German cities. Then LeMay figured out
Japanese cities were far more flammable and he used it by the ton.
If we had lost that war the Army Air force leaders would have been
hanged for war crimes. They had to spare 3 Japanese cities, just so
they would have a decent test of the atomic bombs. The rest of them
were already burned out shadows of their former selves. We killed a
lot more people in the fire bomb raids than the nukes killed. They
were virtually all civilians.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:44:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/9/2017 4:39 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:19:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/9/2017 4:16 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:57:59 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but
nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as
napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people.
Sheesh.



Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is...

"Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a
gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was
initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later
primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes
severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret
laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser.
Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World
War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on
Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and
Vietnam War."

You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs.

I've already stated it was used as a weapon, but not as a 'chemical weapon'. As stated above, it was
an incendiary weapon. Napalm is not windborn as is mustard gas and sarin and most other 'chemical'
weapons. It's the windborn trait that makes chemical weapons so effective against large numbers of
people at a very small cost.



John, where was napalm usually dropped?

If I say, "On the ground", will you be ****ed?

Napalm was effective against enemy that were dug in or under cover, or against what were thought to
be ammo/supply storage facilities.

We dropped it on areas where the land mines and booby traps were so prevalent that taking dozers
with Rome plow blades in to clear the area was a scary proposition.



Then I retract as being in error that it was used primarily as a
defoliant. That was my understanding although I knew it was misused.
Still, it's not a banned "weapon" as nerve gases are.


It is an 'incendiary' weapon, as is white phosphorous. Neither are chemical weapons, regardless of
what Krause says.