The Iraq Thread 2

[denoir 0]

to the dead person it sure as hell is, they aren't any more dead by mustard gas than they are by naplam, bullets, shark attack, insert means of dying here, or any other method the human brain can concoct.  Death is death, period.  it sucks just the same no matter how it occurs.  But we'll all find that out eventually, won't we?

And what about the casualties that survive? Would you rather have a shell fragment in your leg or to have third degree burns on it?

And death is seldom instantaneous. If it takes you some time to die, would you prefer to spend that time enduring extreme pain?

[theavonlady 2]

No. My conclusion was that what you stated earlier didn't seem to do the job, at least in this case.

Then you are making things up since the article certainly didn't say anything like that:

Quote[/b] ]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.

Well, the article you just quoted says "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."

So what am I making up here or am I lost in the sauce?

It does not say how much it was shelled and bombed. It does not even say that anything was left after it. They only say this:

1) It was shelled and bombed with regular weapons

2) It was napalm bombed

After 1+2 there was no more opposition.

It does not in any way say that napalm was the only solution to kill off all people on that hill.

I'm reading the article differently than you. Also, neither of us were there or seem to have an exact picture of the decision making process that led to naplam's use, though the US holds it legal anyway.

Quote[/b] ]It does not say how much it was shelled and bombed.

It says "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."

Quote[/b] ]It does not in any way say that napalm was the only solution to kill off all people on that hill.

It implies that it was the weapon that finished the job off and the others didn't.

[Schoeler 0]

Denoir, I can't see why you aren't making the distinction between killing and injuring or maiming. Those who are injured by weapons like napalm suffer horribly, but only after the shock wears off. Those killed by napalm probably only feel momentary pain, just the same as those who are killed by bullets. A Marine friend of mine has been shot three times. You wan't to know what he told me it feels like? Like taking a blow from a baseball bat and then for a little while, like nothing. a few minutes later it burns and hurts like hell. The point is, if one dies before it actually starts to hurt, then the method of killing doesn't really matter. It's only when one survives the injury that concerns arise.

In this case, the conventional bombs were used first, any survivors were suffering anyway. The point of compleltely annihilating every living thing on the hilltop by using napalm probably did those folks a favor by putting an abrupt end to their suffering. As long as they are all dead, i don't think the weapon use was any more inhumane then the intial attempts at killing them was. The entire concept of killing is inhumane, what does the method matter in the long run?

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]Like stated earlier, in war, you aren't offered the choice.

No, of course not. This discussion is not about choice though. Its about napalm, and if it should be used or not. The reason the UN banned it I suspect is to remove that option from the battlefield, so people wouldnt have to be subjected to it.

The only reason choice entered the discussion is because people seem to think that some ways arent nastier to die than others. And I disagree with this. Or maybe you'd like to see executions by napalm instead of by lethal injection or firing squad for example?

[denoir 0]

1. Indeed the US and UN disagree on whether napalm falls under a category of a legitmate or illegitimate weapon of war.

In this case you have to agree that the majority decision was correct as we are all human beings. That UN convention has been ratified by almost every country in the world. Three major bans were introduced:

1) AP-mines due to the fact that they maim rather than kill and leave the victim suffering. Also it is a big problem with civilian casualties after the conflict ends as the landscape gets polluted by mines.

2) Cluster bombs (casette bombs/submunitions), the same reason as the AP mines.

3) Incendiary weapons such as napalm, willy pete, fuel-air explosives because of the great suffering it causes for the survivors. There is nothing quite as painful to the human body as burns.

Why did not USA agree to ban these weapons? Because they use them in a large extent while the chance of them getting exposed to it is limited, especially since they're banned world-wide.

The overall point is: there are plenty of more efficient and less painful ways to kill, maim and wound fellow human beings. Using weapons that are explicitly designed to cause unnecessary suffering to the victims can't be justified.

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]Studies have shown that the human body can only take so much pain, after that the central nervous system shuts down and blocks it out.

Yes, but the system doesnt stay permanently shut down. Lets say you survive the blast and the pain shuts down the system temporarily. Then you wake up later on, with those burns. Still think you wouldnt feel pain?

You are talking about surviving, I'm talking about death. Funny how the human mind works, it always jumps to the assumption of survival.

Quote[/b] ]As for the system shutting down, yes, I am sure this happens. But I doubt it works the same on all people, and I doubt they wouldnt feel initital pain anyway.

Nope, it pretty much works the same for anyone with a normally funtioning nervous system.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]This is why grieviously wounded people often stare at their wounds in complete and total amazement and say things like "I can't believe this doesn't hurt a bit!" Trust me, I used to work in a trauma center.

Keyword being "often". And how many napalm victims have you met by the way? My brother was involved in an incident where a man threatened to torch his home and his family, using a jug of gasoline and a lighter. Luckily, only the man got burnt. Sadly, quite seriously. According to my brothers account that man felt quite a deal of pain after the flames had been put out.

I haven't met any napalm victims, but I've seen plenty of nastily and horribly burned people from housefires, carfires, greasefires etc... They were either: A. Quite dead. B. In shock and not hurting yet. or C. Out of shock and screaming horribly. But I can't really say if they were screaming any more horribly than the sudden traumatic amputees I met were, or the guy who had been shot in the head, or the guy i saw who was disembowelled once was, you get the point I'm sure.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The dead don't give a shit how they died, or, about anything else for that matter. i never had any complaints from them.

So given a choice of death, between say being put down with a drug or napalm, you wouldnt choice either because it wouldnt matter to you?

That's exactly what I'm saying. I'd be dead either way. It wouldn't really matter how it happened. Now if I survived the attempt to kill me, then sure, it would matter very much to me. The only choice to make, if you are given one, is dying or not dying.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Personally I think if they did have a say in the matter, they'd rather forgoe the whole experience and be alive. I know I'd rather not die if I could avoid the whole thing.

Of course they wouldnt want to die. But that is besides the point since we are actually discussing ways to die, or kill, as it were.

No, actually you are discussing surviving attempts to kill, I'm the only one discussing actual death so far. I'm just being a pain in the ass in the attempt to point that out to you.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Bombs are bombs. They are designed to kill enemy troops, destroy his equipment, supplies, and break his morale. War is ugly, that's what they are for. I'm an advocate of precision guided munitions used with solid intelligence. The less civilians and friendlies hit the better. NBC weapons are just bad because they can have lingering effects and kill indescriminantly by fallout. Weapons such as naplam and cluster munitions should only be used in open terrain or in areas where civilian presence is highly improbable. I feel horrible after reading the story about the Iraqi boy that lost both his arms and his entire family after a bomb hit his house. Plenty of shock, but little awe.

[Longinius 1]

Schoeler: OK. If we are talking about instant and not prolonged death, you are correct. It doesnt matter how you died.

But, napalm doesnt kill all victims instantly. Most die as a result of the burns, some time after the use of the weapon itself. This means, most victims of napalm will suffer horribly before dieing.

If napalm killed instantly, no matter how horrible, I wouldnt object to it. But it doesnt, and thats the point. It takes a long time for most victims to die, and that long time is filled with intense suffering.

[denoir 0]

A Marine friend of mine has been shot three times.  You wan't to know what he told me it feels like?  

I know what it feels like because I've been shot in the leg (it was a ricochet but the principle holds). And it hurt like hell. And no, there was no shock apart from perhaps for a second at the impact. And I can tell you that I'd much rather get shot then say have third degree burns on my leg.

I've had a small second degree burn on my arm not so long ago (I fell asleep with my arm on an electrical heater) and while the initial pain was smaller, overall it was worse than getting shot.

[Longinius 1]

Never been shot, but I have been stabbed once... And burnt by boiling grease on the wrist.

I dont know how a stab wound compares to a bullet, but I do know how a burn compared to a stab. The stab, while quite painful, cant really compare to the burn. The burn was just insane. First quite intense pain, followed by shock at which time I didnt feel much. After putting my arm in a sink with water, shock started to go away and pain took over. I dont know what the burn classed as, I suspect a second degree one. Anyway, I'll take a stabbing over a burn.

[Schoeler 0]

Schoeler: OK. If we are talking about instant and not prolonged death, you are correct. It doesnt matter how you died.

But, napalm doesnt kill all victims instantly. Most die as a result of the burns, some time after the use of the weapon itself. This means, most victims of napalm will suffer horribly before dieing.

If napalm killed instantly, no matter how horrible, I wouldnt object to it. But it doesnt, and thats the point. It takes a long time for most victims to die, and that long time is filled with intense suffering.

Except that in the illustration you used, the naplam was used to insure there were no survivors from the initial conventional bombing. If there were any survivors, they were already suffering horribly, so the use of the napalm to snuff them out can almost be seen as humane if any sort of killing can be considered humane. Personally, I see all killing as inhumane, even lethal injection or assisted suicide. I don't agree with killing at all, unfortunately, we are talking about human beings here, so I don't see an end to killing coming any time soon. Since we are stuck with the fact that human beings are going to continue on with the business of killing one another, then the only thing I can side with is the most efficient means of killing available. If you are going to do something, why half ass the effort? Do it right or don't do it at all. If napalm is a more efficent method of killing than conventional bombs are, and I'm forced to participate in the ugliness of killing my fellow man, then I'd elect to use napalm over conventional weapons. Hell, why not a nuke. At least then we'd know we've gotten them all, and that's really the point with killing isn't it. I can side with not using land mines. They are designed to maim. If the point of war is to kill until the killing can no onger be tolerated, then this is simply a cruel twist to an already cruel enterprise.

[Longinius 1]

So you are not opposed to the use of WMD's, Schoeler?

[Balschoiw 0]

MK77´s were not only used once in Iraq. So you better step back from your one spot only analyzes.

It´s really funny that personal opinions should outrule the research UN, Geneva convention and a lot of medical science teams did over 60 years now.

There never was a situation in Iraq that would justify the useage of non-conventional weapons.

Again, imagine your own troops burning to death alive or returning with life-changing burns to the US. This would be totally different then but unless it´s only Iraqui´s who die you don´t bother much.

Why did the US pentagon ly on that issue until provenb wrong if there is no big deal about it ?

Have you ever seen/heard/smelt a human burning / burning to death ?

[denoir 0]

It's a question of if napalm is to be allowed in the battle field at all. Just because it might have not done any difference in this case does not mean that it won't make any difference in other cases. Again, I'll quote that wing commander:

Quote[/b] ]We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. Randolph Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, told the San Diego Union-Tribune.

"Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

This would indicate that the bridges were the targets and the people down there were not the intended targets.

The question is: Is this weapon necessary? Why use a weapon that can cause such nasty injuries when you can accomplish the same tasks with more "humane" weapons?

[Schoeler 0]

Never been shot, but I have been stabbed once... And burnt by boiling grease on the wrist.

I dont know how a stab wound compares to a bullet, but I do know how a burn compared to a stab. The stab, while quite painful, cant really compare to the burn. The burn was just insane. First quite intense pain, followed by shock at which time I didnt feel much. After putting my arm in a sink with water, shock started to go away and pain took over. I dont know what the burn classed as, I suspect a second degree one. Anyway, I'll take a stabbing over a burn.

See, that's exactly my point. The method only matters to the survivors. Had either Denoir or you suffered a lethal injury, you wouldn't give a damn what caused your death. You wouldn't give a damn about anything. Most likely you would have suffered that initial "Oh shit I'm gonna die!" moment of shock and then gone and done exactly that. Denoir, I got shot one in the back with a small caliber weapon once by my dickhead neighbor who got bored shooting at tin cans. Granted it wasn't a "real" bullet per se (.17 caliber pellet), but it did penetrate quite far into my back and your right, it hurt like a sonofabitch, but only about 30 seconds after it happened.

[Schoeler 0]

So you are not opposed to the use of WMD's, Schoeler?

I'm opposed to all killing, but if we can't avoid killing (and we as human beings can't seem to), why not kill using the quickest and most efficient method available?

[theavonlady 2]

This would indicate that the bridges were the targets and the people down there were not the intended targets.

Maybe they wanted the bridges intact for such obvious reasons but wanted to eliminate the enemy troops around and on the bridge? That's what it sounds like to me.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm opposed to all killing, but if we can't avoid killing (and we as human beings can't seem to), why not kill using the quickest and most efficient method available?

Because Mk77´s are unguided, have a large area of effect that includes civillian casualties whenever they are dropped,

and according to US officials you don´t have them since 2001.

EDIT: I´ll get a complete overview on the US useage of MK77´s in Iraq at 1600 today. Stay tuned.

[Schoeler 0]

MK77´s were not only used once in Iraq. So you better step back from your one spot only analyzes.

It´s really funny that personal opinions should outrule the research UN, Geneva convention and a lot of medical science teams did over 60 years now.

There never was a situation in Iraq that would justify the useage of non-conventional weapons.

Again, imagine your own troops burning to death alive or returning with life-changing burns to the US. This would be totally different then but unless it´s only Iraqui´s who die you don´t bother much.

Why did the US pentagon ly on that issue until provenb wrong if there is no big deal about it ?

Have you ever seen/heard/smelt a human burning / burning to death ?

Yes, I have. Reread my posts, I don't think there was any indication in them that I'm not opposed to using napalm on Iraqis only. I just think that the ugly business of warfare is just that, horrible and ugly. Any person injured realizes a life-changing experience. It doesn't matter if it occurred through napalm, bullets or bombs. I just think that if we can't avoid killing and warfare, then we should do it as efficiently as possible, thus more reapidly attaining the goal of all warfare: Killing one's enemy to the point were the losses become intolerable and the war ends. In the long run, wars would be shorter and less devastating if we stuck to more efficient methods.

[denoir 0]

This would indicate that the bridges were the targets and the people down there were not the intended targets.

Maybe they wanted the bridges intact for such obvious reasons but wanted to eliminate the enemy troops around and on the bridge?  That's what it sounds like to me.

It seems that we have very different interpretation of English:

Quote[/b] ]We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. Randolph Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, told the San Diego Union-Tribune.

"Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

"Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.". The use of the word "unfortunately" indicates by my book that the people were not their intended target.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]In the long run, wars would be shorter and less devastating if we stuck to more efficient methods.

What would make the wars shorter ? Iraq war has ended in no time but it goes on and on if I may remind you.

The only ones that are affected badly by unguided bombs like the Mk77 are civillians and that were the ones who the US claimed to free. ´

Tell me at wich point of the Iraq war the useage of unconventional and internationally banned weapons was justified and why.

[WhoCares 0]

Sounds like a preemptive strike, to assure that noone is there when the troops arive.

About the cassualties - there is another aspect left out so far in this discussion. Injuries caused by a normal shell can be treated immediatly by medics. That's quite difficult with Napalm, as it continues burning and thus endangers the medic. It is very difficult to get rid of, as it has jelly-like components that are supposed to stick just were they hit. The wounds get worse after the initial hit a.s.o

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]In the long run, wars would be shorter and less devastating if we stuck to more efficient methods.

What would make the wars shorter ? Iraq war has ended in no time but it goes on and on if I may remind you.

The only ones that are affected badly by unguided bombs like the Mk77 are civillians and that were the ones who the US claimed to free. ´

Tell me at wich point of the Iraq war the useage of unconventional and internationally banned weapons was justified and why.

Well, look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war with Japan ended with 200,000 killed and no invasion of Japan which was projected to cause over 1 million casualties for the allies alone and to last until 1946-47. If we had dropped the bombs in January of 41 (had they been available) the war would have ended much sooner and with much less cost to mankind. More efficient killing in warfare makes warfare that much less tolerable and brings about a quicker end.

[denoir 0]

Lets not go off on that tangent. The 1 million projections were complete BS as the military back then pointed out. It was a political move to impress the Soviets at the price of 400,000 Japanese civilians. I don't think that a war crime of that scale makes a good defense for using barbaric methods today - on the contrary.

[theavonlady 2]

It was a political move to impress the Soviets at the price of 400,000 Japanese civilians.

How many allied soldiers were spared death and multilation by changing the Japanese minds about surrendering faster rather than dying for their immortal Emperor in a war started by Japan, in a true axis of evil with the Nazis?

But we're getting off-topic............... or are we?