August 11, 2003
"Just Another Weapon"
In the early days of the war, both the Sydney Morning Herald and CNN reported that the United States had deployed Napalm against Iraqi positions. CNN reporter Martin Savidge, referring to the assault on Safwan Hill, cheerily informed viewers that
It is now estimated the hill was hit so badly by missiles, artillery, and by the Air Force, that they shaved a couple of feet off it. And anything that was up there that was left after all the explosions was then hit with napalm. And that pretty much put an end to any Iraqi operations up on that hill.
The Pentagon quickly issued a denial of the Herald's story, which was added to its Web incarnation:
Your story ("Dead bodies everywhere", by Lindsay Murdoch, March 22, 2003) claiming U.S. forces are using napalm in Iraq, is patently false. The U.S. took napalm out of service in the early 1970s. We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001, and no longer maintain any stocks of napalm. -- Jeff A. Davis, Lieutenant Commander, US Navy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense.
Four months later, the Pentagon has acknowledged having used "Mark 77 firebombs" , whose function is "remarkably similar" to Napalm.
A retired Marine Lt. General says, of Napalm, "I used it routinely in Vietnam. I have no moral compunction against using it. It's just another weapon." Now, if the Pentagon had taken this attitude, then it wouldn't have felt compelled to have issued its initial denial (if only for PR purposes).
In one sense, though, the Lt. General is correct: given that the war itself was illegal, unjustifiable, and screamingly immoral; then the killing and maiming of thousands of civilians and unknown numbers of soldiers -- regardless of the weapons used -- is a study in unmitigated barbarism.
However, those scoring at home may note the interesting juxtaposition now presenting itself to those with eyes to see. The United States' invasion of Iraq was, as we know, justified on the grounds that Saddam was "undeniably" in possession of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons -- the "most destructive weapons ever devised", according to the murderer-in-chief. Yet several months later, no such weapons or programmes are in evidence.
Those who dared point up that the United States was sitting on top of the largest stockpile of such weapons ever seen were reminded that this was okay because the United States was not a "rogue nation", but a responsible, civilised member of the world community. "We see farther into the future," to use Madeleine Albright's words.
What, then, to make of the reality that the United States has used low-level nuclear weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is seeking to develop a "new generation" of "useable" nuclear weapons? What to make of the use of Napalm-like "firebombs" (or the continued assault upon Colombian peasants with another incredibly destructive bio-chemical weapon, the so-called "Agent Green")? What to make of the destruction of Iraqi electricity grids -- and the concomitant disabling of water treatment facilities?
Just another weapon -- at least, when we're using it to slaughter tens of thousands of niggers.
Posted by Eddie Tews at August 11, 2003 06:06 PM
Comments
yeah Eddie, heaven forbid we should go to war and then employ weapons that actually kill people!! I mean, that's what they're fucking for! And the keyword that completely destroys the feeble quasi-point you were trying to make in your last point is "similar", i.e. "its effect is remarkably SIMILAR to napalm." the U.S. said it has no more napalm and it doesn't. if they come out with a similar weapon, it still isn't napalm, you stupid retarded fuck.
LOL, now you're trying to say the U.S. used nuclear weapons in Iraq! lol!! the shit that comes out of your mouth just keeps getting better!! LOL! -- Posted by: Greg Taylor on August 11, 2003 06:39 PM