Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Immoral

re: The immorality of napalm usage depends upon what you would consider a moral war . . .
D. Spires — (archived)

American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm, a WMD, on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

Sorry, Raoul. It was effective use of a weapon, whose only controversiality is that the U.S. never promised not to use it. And it might be interesting to know that a white phosphorous round fired from a 4-duece, or 81mm mortar is far worse than napalm, as the fire is within the lungs, not on the skin, but these were used as well. You see, we went in expecting anything, and we remain there today -- still expecting anything, and a living force to be reckoned with.

Seems the more you learn about weapons systems, the more you find the state of war -- distasteful. How can that be? You have no real knowledge of what's out there. I think you need to join up, so you can get a real hate for war -- as our soldiers have.

They know, and they do hate it, but it remains a hated tangibility of what the people of this stinking world demand of us. Yes, of us. Not you. Us. It's either war, or perhaps our families and friends die, and we enjoy the genuine freedom to make that difference, and the forward-thinking nations of the world join to allow us to make that change, both here, and overseas.

Napalm is no more immoral than a battalion of M16s set to rock-n-roll, M203s lobbing 70mm grenades, M60s mowing the lawn, and 60mm recoilless rifles pumping the positions. When you have air superiority, it’s just a little safer to use.

Or were you seriously looking for a level playing field?

Cheers,
Dan

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (183 posts)