SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: KonKilo who wrote (110862)8/10/2003 8:15:10 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
I think the argument is ridiculous...

The US uses Thermobaric bombs, which also use fuel to create a massive pressure wave and such the oxygen out of the air (which napalm also does).

I believe we continue to use flamethrowers in limited situations, which are nothing more than Napalm in a backpack..

We also use Fuel Air Explosives, which have similar blast qualities to low-yield nuclear devices...

We also use "daisy cutters", which are about on the fine line of a WMD...

We also use White Phosphorus, which burns when exposed to air. The only manner in which to treat a patient with WP wounds is to emmerse the wound in water to prevent oxygen from getting to it.

Napalm is bad, but WP has got be nearly as terrible, IMO..

What do people like you think war is? Is war some kind of game where you have sacrifice the lives of your soldiers so as to only kill your opponents with "humane" weapons?

We told them to go home... to leave the battlefield.... They remained.. And now they continue to attack and snipe at us...

I'm not particularly merciful towards an enemy that seeks to take the lives of our troops.. And I have no problem using Napalm on a battlefield.

I do have a problem using it in an urban enviroment where civilians are an issue.

Hawk
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext