WE are the Bastards

I've been hesitant to really post about this, but it is becoming quite clear that the United States used NAPALM in Fallujah. Among the prime reasons declared as whey we should act to overthrow Hussein was his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in the late 1980s (which is true and abominable of course) -- a use which was enabled and tolerated by the Reagan Administration, and only used as a basis for acting against Hussein a generation later. Of course, we also went into the Iraq because we claimed they had WMD.

Well NAPALM is a WMD, but we are using it.

This is akin to the Germans entering Belgium and France in August 1914 because the French had chemical weapons, only to begin being the first to use them not long after (this is a fact).

It is not the first time we've used NAPALM in Iraq.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war.

The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April [2003], when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

At Daily Kos, diarist Avila has more on the recent use of NAPALM in Iraq.

These stories are all over the alternative media and bubbling up.

When embedded reporters told of U.S. napalm use in Iraq at the start of the invasion, Pentagon hacks launched a rapid propaganda counter-attack. Lt. Commanders Danny Hernandez and Jeff Davis issued official denials, stating that the U.S. had destroyed all of its napalm bombs years ago. After the March 22 CNN and Sydney Morning Herald reports, Davis emphatically added that such reports were “patently false.”

Although the denials were false, they effectively killed any reporting about U.S. napalm use until five months after the fact, and more than three months after the president declared the end of “major combat operations” on May 1.

Does it matter that the U.S. is using a weapon that was banned by the UN in 1980? Does it matter that the U.S. is using and plans to use more weapons valued for their psychological as well as physical effects? Does it matter that these acts are well publicized by Arab/Muslim media, but the U.S. public is kept ignorant and confused? In any case, the truth is:

Hundreds of napalm bombs were shipped to Iraq and dozens were dropped on numerous sites. The official website of the USMC reported on February 2, 2003 that napalm bombs were offloaded into Kuwait for the 3d Marine Aircraft Wing “ready for use whenever 3rd MAW needs them.”

According to Col. Randolph Alles (commander of the Miramar-based Marine Air Group 11), “We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches…there were people there because you could see them in the [cockpit] video.” He further stated, “The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect.”

Just as Navy sailors were supplying Marines with napalm in February, the Pentagon was asking Congress for $3.6 million for 1,000 more napalm bombs in the 2004 budget. Illinois’ Rock Island Arsenal is making 500 more right now.

When confronted with the news from San Diego that Marine pilots back from the front and their commander had discussed their use of napalm in Iraq with a reporter, the Pentagon changed its story. Now, it admits using Mark 77 firebombs and claims that its prior denials of napalm use would not have occurred had reporters used the correct terminology during their inquiries. Because the bombs contain kerosene instead of gasoline in their fuel/gel mixture (which is now harder to extinguish), the “new and improved” napalm isn’t really napalm anymore. Yet, as revealed by Marine Corps hack Colonel Mike Daily, the Pentagon knew this was a phony excuse for its prior lies, telling a reporter, “Many folks [out of habit] refer to the Mark-77 as ‘napalm’ because its effect upon the target is remarkably similar.” The Marine commander and his pilots call it “napalm.”

John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, said, “You can call it something other than napalm, but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated...they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The U.S. is the only country that has used napalm for a long time.”

Sounds like some folks in the Quad Cities have a cause (I'm sure a few of them are more than aware of this fact already).

This is a major problem, there is simply no moral way to justify the use of NAPALM. Arguments that it will "save" American lives are not justification to the pandora's box the use of NAPALM causes. In the long run, more Americans will die from the use of this type of weapon than be saved by its use.

The use of such weapons will be used as "Exhibit A" for Iraqis and those who sympathize with those opposed to America to hate. Can you really say that hatred is unjustified by this argument: "hey, it kills more of you people than us so we used it"? No you cannot.

Hey, mainstream media, how about asking the Chimp himself about this crap? Or how about at least a discussion of the use of such weapons, as they are being unleased in our name and most Americans (thanks to your inattention) have no goddamned idea they are being used.