Officials confirm dropping firebombs on Iraqi troops

[Pekka]

Are firebombs your choice of weapon when destroying bridges? I don't know.. just seems like there would be better ways too. THis is purely technical observation, I have no probs of using napalm. I mean hearing that napalm is used. They need Susie Q's - the new bridge buster mods!

[Panag]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, I did read above:

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. James Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

Case Closed

hi ,

um , ...... imran , these are not panag's views , ......

if you would have read the thread you would have seen that , .....


have a nice day

[Dry]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If they didn't want to die, they shouldn't have been there to resist. **** 'em.

Great!!!
Only kamikazes and suicide bombers have the right to resist !!

[Sava]

I just regret the fire bombing didn't take longer to kill them.

[Pekka]

Drye, Nah.. everyone has the right to resist. But no one should be expected to return alive. Sure, it's tragic at least to the other side it is, but odds are you're going to get killed. So yes, if they didn't want to die, then they should have done something else, like flee, desert, something. It is a different thing wanting to die, accepting the possibility of getting killed and not wanting to die.

[Pekka]

wanting to die = suicide bombers & other nuts
accepting the possibility of getting killed = soldiers
not wanting to die = deserters, dodgers, many types fit in to this category.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dry

Great!!!
Only kamikazes and suicide bombers have the right to resist !!

They have the right to resist, there just isn't much point in whining and *****ing about the consequences if they choose to do so. We're not going to dismount infantry, walk into their prepared positions and get ourselves killed trying to save *******s who are shooting at us, or in position to do so.

So they have two choices. Resist and die, or get the hell out of our way and stay out of it.

[Poogas]

Originally posted by oedo


so how about this:
If the Americans didn´t want to die, they shouldn´t have been there to attack, **** 'em

I don't get your point... This is common sense... If you don't feel right defending or attacking for your country, and take that responsibility along with the facts you will be put in harms way, than why would you join.

I truly have no clue what point you are trying to get across with the above quote...

Originally posted by Dry

Great!!!
Only kamikazes and suicide bombers have the right to resist !!

Same goes for you... Everyone has the right to resist, but they have to acknowledge that they will most likely be killed going up against a superior force, or atleast the fact they are going into harms way.

Originally posted by Sava
I just regret the fire bombing didn't take longer to kill them.

I don't really agree with that, but it did make me laugh.

Originally posted by Pekka
wanting to die = suicide bombers & other nuts
accepting the possibility of getting killed = soldiers
not wanting to die = deserters, dodgers, many types fit in to this category.

Don't know why i'm quoting this, but its a good bit of info for this thread, so a second look at it by some of these guys couldn't hurt.

[Japher]

Are firebombs your choice of weapon when destroying bridges?

It's a cheap way to destroy WOODEN bridges

Without napalm you can't say "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning" without looking stupid.

War is not kind... who'd of tunk it?

[Dry]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So they have two choices. Resist and die, or get the hell out of our way and stay out of it.

Resistance is futile. I know, I've heard that before

MtG, you do not justify their death by being on the wrong side, defending a wrong cause, you justify their death by being weaker. Not even by beeing part of the risk they accepted to take by resisting. No, for you: they resisted, they deserve to die.

May I remind you the definition of fascism?
Fascism is the rule of power.
'Because I am the strongest' is enough to justify all fascists actions.

I haven't seen much other justifications in your posts.

[oedo]

if this thread has one point, then it is that the USA needs to reinvent conscription again. this so what, it´s war-chickenhawk attitude is hardly bearable.

[Japher]

oedo: you seem to have never had the honor to meet someone whose choice it is to fight and to possibly die for one's country.

[Dis]

this is outrageous.

we need to have non lethal ways of conducting war.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Dissident
this is outrageous.

we need to have non lethal ways of conducting war.

hi ,

well one could always try to talk the enemy into boredom , ......


have a great day

[Dis]

to further clarify. I was not 100% trolling in that above post, more like 80%

But wouldn't it be cool if we could develop weapons that could just knock people uncouncious for several hours? then we just round them up and put them in camps.

Then those unsavory peacniks would have nothing to complain about.