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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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?