We are a really credible rag!
Posted on 11/29/2004 1:07:16 PM PST by areafiftyone
I don't recall such whining when they were gutting Americans and stringing them up on a bridger for Al Jezeera to broadcast. Then they were quite full of brag and bounce.
well, we can dream...can't we? Napalm would clean the rats' nest out with fewer American casualties. But the PC crowd can't have that.
They would have a field day.
What a morale booster that would be!
LOL. Only if you want your pork shoulder cooked in 9 minutes and tough as shoe leather.
200 degrees for 24 hours.
It's settled then. Beer trucks accompany all US forces as they head into battle to assure a proper party when it's over. BBQ provided for the party will GFM (Government Furnished Material) as well. In this case, it will be napalm.
The other issue is the US Military doesn't have any napalm.
Roger that!
These sorry assed, complaining Arabs have been due this severe ass kicking for a long time..
The only problem is, it's become apparent we haven't killed nearly enough for them to realize they will not succeed in the madness...
I'm all for the total destruction of at least ONE major hotbed city..... flattened!
Semper Fi
HooAh!
Napalm is not a gas. It is a gel petroleum distillate (I think it's naptha based - zippo lighter fluid for non-nerds). In the States, we call petroleum distillates gas (for gasoline), but in great britain, they call it petrol. The mirror is a british publication, so when they say "gas", they are probably (and incorrectly) thinking it's a gas as in helium or sarin. The author has no idea what napalm actually is, and is just making this up.
The United States has never agreed to ban the use of napalm. Even so, I question just what our troops would be doing with napalm in Iraq. In the jungles and wood villages of Asia it would be useful. The sand and mud brick houses of Iraq probably don't burn very well no matter what you spray on them. With enough napalm, we might be able to make some glass from the sand and ceramic from the mud brick, but we have weapons that do that much more easily (and we never agreed not to use them, either :P ). Using napalm on a mud brick house in Iraq is more likely to touch off whatever nasty munitions might be stored inside than burn the structure. In a country with tons of chemical weapons hidden somewhere, our troops probably don't want to be doing that.
This story (and its author) is just stupid. Was it written in MS Word, or on a IBM selectric? You'd think if they were going to make something up, they'd at least do a little research.
We dropped tons of the stuff in Vietnam, and I know Harriers were dropping it in Gulf War I to ignite trenches filled with oil; but I don't know if we have stopped using it. In 1970, I attended a military conference where we discussed discontinuing its use. It was not "effective" in that once a fighter was burned with it, the fighter could continue to fight for several minutes. "Effective" weapons killed instantly.
The whole city needs some Willie- Pete too.
Thus, "jellied gas"
Here, here!!
"Fallujah “almost gone”
Almost gone isn't good enough for me.
BTW, I though Napalm was a defoliant, or do I have it confused with Agent Orange?
We do not have it in our inventory.
Don't have it.
Don't use it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.