Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on December 02, 2004, 10:26:39 pm
-
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14920109&method=full&siteid=106694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html
-
See? We never actually said we'd stop using it... :nervous:
-
How credible is the "Sunday Mirror" ?
-
The source for that article, I think is Aljazeera, so this very well could be a farce.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5875
Thats all I want to say.
-
IIRC i heard it from a much more reliable source
the US Gov
[but im not going to bother to dig through totalfark
-
Originally posted by Kazan
IIRC i heard it from a much more reliable source
the US Gov
Are you sure about that?
-
Wouldn't surprise me, America never promised to stop using Napalm, but the UK did, kind of puts Tony in a tough position ;)
-
Not that tough. America is breaking widely-accepted international law by ****ing around with Napalm.
By remaining in Iraq as part of the joint venture, Britain is an accessory to that and therefore breaks the treaty.
So he's either gotta pull our troops out or suffer the consequences of breaking the treaty.
-
Or blame it on the Kurds!
-
I hope they pull our troops out.
It'd be nice to see the US troops having the carpet pulled out from under them during active combat operations.
-
Not really. But it would shake things up a bit.
-
ahem...
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning"
hehe
-
Says the Texan......
-
says the relocated New Jerseyan
-
You're missing the point.
You went to Texas. It doesn't matter where you're from originally.
-
Indeed. Infact, it may actually make you worse than a homegrown Texan.
-
Napalm is as much a psychological weapon as it is a weapon for killing. It's supposed to incinerate the enemy combatants and kill the resolve of the enemy so they will give up instead of facing the same fate.
The US never actually agreed to stop using it.
Also, there's no such thing as a civilian/neutral party in a warzone. If you don't want to fight, you should leave so you don't get killed accidentally. Common sense really.
-
Leave and go where?
Through the American lines and get shot because they think you're carrying explosives?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Also, there's no such thing as a civilian/neutral party in a warzone. If you don't want to fight, you should leave so you don't get killed accidentally. Common sense really.
Uh huh... then why do you still refer to killing of innocents as an accident?
-
Go on google news and type napalm, if you want more sources. And lib, flee the city how ? Nearly nobody in iraq has acces to transport, and trying to get out of the city by foot is asking either to be shot by trigger happy soldier around the city, or, if you managed to get past them, to live as a vagrant 'cause you've lost everything due to bombing of what you possessed.
"Hey guys, Americans are here to liberate our country. Let's get out of the country so they can be sure to only shoot the bad guys (or the young, the old, the sick, you know, all these people who CAN'T move for a reason or another)."
Dunno about kaz's affirmation ofyou being a christofascist, though you could do with a bit less of theology in your argument, but a bloodthirsty warmonging asshole, that you are.
-
Originally posted by an0n
You're missing the point.
You went to Texas. It doesn't matter where you're from originally.
wait...you can /move/ to texas?... wow, never thought that was actually possible....
i don't give it too much thought, as i haven't seen anything of it on the major news networks like Reuters.
-
Hey, if it was up to me, Fallujah would be so many piles of rubble.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Hey, if it was up to me, Fallujah would be so many piles of rubble.
and setting off a giger-counter, i'll wager. :blah:
-
Why waste a million dollar nuke when $500,000 worth of high explosives will do the job. Or we can use that orbital particle cannon nobody's supposed to know about.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Hey, if it was up to me, Fallujah would be so many piles of rubble.
yeah, and if it was up to me, north america and middle east would both be a pile of rocks and some residue fume.
-
Then who would you balme for the worlds woes? :D
-
Ah-ha.
Or use the Inter-Continental Boomerang Mobilizer (ICBM) and wipe em all out in one go.
And no, this one does'nt come back.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Hey, if it was up to me, Fallujah would be so many piles of rubble.
The worrying thing is, I think you're serious about that.
Crusade versus Jihad, anyone?
-
Yup. Dubya actually called his '"war" on terror' that a few years back. All we need now is the tabards with crosses on, and an edict from the Baptist fundie equivalent of the Pope.
-
*In before the lock*
It's sucks that they are using Napalm, and it is another step down the road to being 'Vietnam II' Someone high up needs to change strategy....
-
Amen to that. Here's hoping (beyond hope?) :yes:
-
Awesome.
The DU just wasn't cauing quite enough mayhem, so back to reliable old napalm we go. Birth defects for generations to come really show America's commitment to ensuring a better life for the Iraqis.
****, how soon can we get Saddam back?
-
Sickening in itself, but how is this any different from Saddam using the kind of small-scale chemical weapons that prompted such outrage from the US (i.e. the gassing of the Kurds)?
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Sickening in itself, but how is this any different from Saddam using the kind of small-scale chemical weapons that prompted such outrage from the US (i.e. the gassing of the Kurds)?
the difference is that this is "in the name of freedom".
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Sickening in itself, but how is this any different from Saddam using the kind of small-scale chemical weapons that prompted such outrage from the US (i.e. the gassing of the Kurds)?
Hey. There is one treaty regarding inflammable weaponry, and that it's that weapons such as napalm, thermite, white phosphorous and so on are not to be used against civilian targets. [The emphasis on word "civilian" should be important, because it's basically just ID'ing your target].
Napalm - or it's many variants, which share some common components and tendency to BURN - is not a chemical weapon. It uses horrible stuff like gasoline, polystyrene and some stuff to add to the toxicity of smoke* and burning temperature, like magnesium. It's purpose is to burn stuff. I've played around with napalm - it's funny stuff, sticks to everything and burns at 3000 degree C temperature. Of course, a wet woolcloth gives you quite a protection! It's not as inhumane as phosphorous, because when once exhausted, it does not spontaneously ignite when reacting with O2.
Napalm is more an area suppression/denial weapon than a pinpoint smart bomb. A 500-kg bomb of Napalm has an effect area of roughly 100x300 meters, and it burns everything. I'd think that anyone who is willing to use such wildly inaccurate weapon with high chances for collateral damage (you just have to love the term..) should be discharged or at least warned. Against unarmoured enemy convoys and dug-in combatants in open desert, fine.
*The smoke is toxic, yep. As is everything with burning gasoline and plastic products. It does not qualify as a chemical weapon.
-
Finally. :yes:
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
Finally. :yes:
Is there something wrong with you?
-
If that is true then it would be quite ironic to see the US using a weapon of mass destruction.
-
Originally posted by Cabbie
If that is true then it would be quite ironic to see the US using a weapon of mass destruction.
:lol: :wtf:
CHECK ME NOW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm)
-
Also; http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145828249.html?oneclick=true
(this is linked off the 'Mark 77' bomb article in wikipedia)
-
bbbut i dont want to refgister
-
Whoops.
EDIT2; sod it; the bb code ****s up the cached copy link
New, improved and more lethal: son of napalm
By Ben Cubby
The Pentagon no longer officially uses the brand-name 'Napalm', but a similar sticky, inflammable substance known as 'fuel-gel mixture', contained in weapons called Mark-77 fire bombs, was dropped on Iraqi troops near the Iraq-Kuwait border at the start of the war.
"I can confirm that Mark-77 fire bombs were used in that general area," Colonel Mike Daily of the US Marine Corps said.
Colonel Daily said that US stocks of Vietnam-era napalm had been phased out, but that the fuel-gel mixture in the Mark-77s had "similar destructive characteristics."
"Many folks (out of habit) refer to the Mark-77 as 'napalm' because its effect upon the target is remarkably similar," he said.
On March 22nd, correspondent Lindsay Murdoch, who was travelling with the US Marines, had reported that napalm was used in an attack on Iraqi troops at Safwan Hill, near the Kuwait border. Murdoch's account was based on statements by two US Marine Corps officers on the ground.
Lieutenant-Commander Jeff A. Davis, USN, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense (Public Affairs) had called Murdoch's story "patently false".
"The US took napalm out of service in the 1970's. We completed the destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001, and no longer maintain any stocks of napalm," Commander Davis told smh online. He was apparently referring to Vietnam-era Napalm-B, which consisted of inflammable fuel thickened with polystyrene and benzene.
The inflammable fuel in Mark-77 fire bombs is thickened with slightly different chemicals, and is believed to contain oxidizers, which make it harder to extinguish than Napalm-B.
Neither weapon technically contains napalm. The chemical mixture that became known as 'napalm' - a combination of naphthalene and palmitate - was used only in the earliest versions of the weapon.
Napalm was banned by United Nations convention in 1980, but the US never signed the agreement. Use of Mark-77 fire bombs is considered legal by the US military.
Ms. Toni McNeal, a spokesperson for Rock Island Arsenal, in Illinois, said the facility is currently producing a further 500 Mark-77s for the US Marine Corps.
She said she did not consider the Mark-77s to be napalm bombs.
But Mark-77s are referred to as 'napalm' in some current US inventories and public affairs documents.
A US Navy public affairs document dated 22/10/99 says that the US Navy no longer uses napalm but "the US Marine Corps has a requirement and uses it at ranges at Yuma and Twenty-Nine Palms."
Twenty-Nine Palms, in California, is the home base of some of the Marine Corps units that took part in the attack on Safwan Hill in Iraq.
Captain Robert Crum, USMC, Public Affairs spokesman for Twenty-Nine Palms, said: "Mk 77s are not routinely used in training at 29 Palms. Yet it would be inappropriate to say that they are never - or never would be - used in training here.
"The average young Marine may be unfamiliar with the technical nomenclature, and probably does refer to this munition by the vernacular 'napalm'."
-
Napalm was banned by United Nations convention in 1980, but the US never signed the agreement. Use of Mark-77 fire bombs is considered legal by the US military.
whoa. I am been trained to use illegal ammo. YAY
-
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
-
Mark 77s?
They're using Mk77 bombs in a city??
:wtf:
-
from that article, it sounds like they used a few at the beginning of the war to break Saddam's Army so that they would give up instead of fight, which is what it's supposed to.
-
Well, I don't doubt they would work, but the margin for error must be tiny, those things cover quite an area with extremely nasty stuff, even jumping into water won't stop the burning.
-
So are the British making a **** fit about this?
-
The British papers are more interested in David Blunkett giving his ex-girlfriend a free Rail pass.....
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Mark 77s?
They're using Mk77 bombs in a city??
:wtf:
In that article, on bridges. But any use of 'napalm' in Baghdad & Fallujah would most likely also be said bombs.
I don't think embedded journalists are being allowed much access to Fallujah, so it'll be hard to find an 'independent' report on it. I guess Napalm can be consider acceptable in a attack on (for example) bedded-in troops (albeit any other country would consider it illegal), but not if it's being used in a city.
-
Come to think of it, they were also accused of using those anti-runway Mk88(?)'s on areas of Baghdad. They drop mini landmines to stop the runway being repaired. Though, considering no-one has managed to accidentally tread on one since the troops moved in (or at least, it hasn't been reported), I wonder.....
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this brings the US actions to:
An unprovoked war against a member of the United Nations, using banned weaponry.
-
Ah, but it's ok because the US didn't sign the ban & don't recognise international law anyways. Or the Geneva convention for POWs.
-
Well, banned is a funny word, it's not banned by America, therefore, whilst they are breaking everyone elses rules, they are, in fact, perfectly within their own.
I mean, let's face it, do you really think the UN is going to get off it's arse and do anything soon?
-
And break the habit of a lifetime?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Well, banned is a funny word, it's not banned by America, therefore, whilst they are breaking everyone elses rules, they are, in fact, perfectly within their own.
I mean, let's face it, do you really think the UN is going to get off it's arse and do anything soon?
It's on Iraqi soil, and I'm assuming Iraq signed the treaty.
-
The old government did, an0n, not the new........
At least, that's what the US'll say. You do know the US is still using mines?
-
They did indeed, the thing is, because America didn't, this whole thing will wrangle it's way through the UN for months, in fact, probably just long enough for it to no longer be neccesary for them to reach a decision.....
-
The yanks seem to think they can do whatever they want. Problem is, until someone proves otherwise and does something about them, it's true.
-
They can.......
We can complain and whinge and throw bits of paper at them till we are blue in the face.
It's not the fact they can do what they like that scares me, so much, so could the Greeks, the Romans etc, it's what they are choosing to do with that ability that scares me.
-
I just don't think any one country should have so much power. It's too dangerous. If there's two countries, nothing happens, because they're both scared of getting vapourised. When there's only one, there's no challenge, no risk. An open invitation to do what you want, when you want, where you want. It follows that some very nasty stuff happens, it's just a question of when and how bad. I feel the worst is yet to come.
-
Just wait until China starts flexing its muscles as a superpower...
-
It won't.
It'll sit back and build it's economy while America consumes all the natural resources - Kinda like what Germany did before WW2.
Then when America runs out of oil and ****, China will be like "Oh, look, we've been stockpiling - and all our stuff runs off Hydrogen Cells, so we can sell you all you want for as much as we please." And strangehold the American economy.
-
That's why the US is trying to get a stranglehold on China's first. They sort of screwed that up by having this War though, they were doing pretty well too.....
-
You're assuming China won't run into problems with overpopulation, or get it's knickers in a twist over Taiwan, though.
-
The only thing I'm worried about is when America goes "Hmmmm. North Sea oil fields, eh?"
-
iirc They'll be empty before the Texan wells, and they don't have all that much left them either. Apparently most of what is in the North Sea these days is Natural Gas.
-
Yup. But Holland has got quite a few natural gas sources on the mainland too.
But more seriously, I doubt Europe is in any danger of getting invaded.
-
Europe will never be invaded. But the US will attack eventually, even if it's just out of "OMG! We're collpasing" desperation in 50-60 years.
Put simply, not in a thousand years has England fallen to an invading force. And in all it's 200 year history, Great Britain has never been attacked with any degree of success.
French, Spaniards, Germans - some of the largest and most powerful empires to have ever existed - We ****ed them all up and sent them scurrying back to their backwater tramp nations with their tails between their legs. When the time comes, we'll do exactly the same thing to the United Statesians.
-
God Save our gracious Queen
La la la laaaaaa lala
la la la laaaa la la
God Save the Queen
;)
-
With the exception of the Romans, the Vikings and internal bickering, the UK has consistently kicked everyone's asses.
-
And even though the Romans won, they still commented on how eternally stubborn and impossible to control we were ;)
-
Damn straight.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
And even though the Romans won, they still commented on how eternally stubborn and impossible to control we were ;)
Hey, they only won down south, y'know.
-
LOL Very true, the border did sort of roam back and forth a fair bit before the wall was built though ;)
-
Hadrians or Antonines?
-
Hadrians was the last one iirc. Was Antonines North or South of Hadrians?
I think Caeser managed to get up to the edge of the Highlands, but consequently lost it over the next 10-15 years or so, if I remember my History correctly.
Edit : It's a curious fact that Britannia, who was a revolutionary during the time of the Roman occupation, was most likely Scottish ;)
-
Antonines wall was built about as far north as Glasgow (theres a surviving stretch about 10 or so miles from my house), intended to be the 'new' north border (i.e. replace the already built Hadrians).
But the Romans could never secure the area & came under constant attack and abandoned it after 20 years or so... they tried again a while later but only lasted a few years.
-
Interesting.
I did a little search on "Iraq Napalm". Funny thing that all of the articles listed are posted by rather 'independent' news outlets, mostly by staff-opinion writers. Show it as a headline on cbsnews.com and I'll buy it.
More to the point - Firebomb != Napalm.
Even more to the point: Napalm itself is a gel, not a gas.
If anyone has a view that runs counter to this, be my guest.
-
Originally posted by an0n
With the exception of the Romans, the Vikings and internal bickering, the UK has consistently kicked everyone's asses.
You forgot the US/French.
Ph34r t3h 4m3ric4n r3\/0lu+i0n!!!!!111oneoneone
:D
-
Yes, I think Antonines was an earlier, failed attempt to achieve what Hadrians wall did, which was as much to stop British revolutionaries fleeing North to swell the Scottish ranks as prevent any unseen troops movements by them.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
You forgot the US/French.
Ph34r t3h 4m3ric4n r3\/0lu+i0n!!!!!111oneoneone
:D
Firstly, the French never beat us.
Secondly, it was ENGLISH COLONIALS - not Americans - who forced a "**** it, they're not worth it" policy. So that counts as internal bickering anyways.
-
I know there was someone from Bretagne who did the whole Hastings thing, but I forgot who won. I really do think I recall the Breton winning and not the Brit.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Interesting.
I did a little search on "Iraq Napalm". Funny thing that all of the articles listed are posted by rather 'independent' news outlets, mostly by staff-opinion writers. Show it as a headline on cbsnews.com and I'll buy it.
More to the point - Firebomb != Napalm.
Even more to the point: Napalm itself is a gel, not a gas.
If anyone has a view that runs counter to this, be my guest.
Napalm = firebomb
Though. i mean, a firebomb is a firebomb, regardless of whether it's technically napalm. We're talking of a warhead which is effectively the 'next-gen' napalm; different chemical composition, same effect & purpose.
Al-Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5875) does have a story on it (it being probably the largest media outlet which has some form of genuine access to the city), but I know that some people would consider it a biased source.
One thing worth noting is that the supposedly unbiased news stations - bbc, itv etc - have a very restricted access to Fallujah; that could be an explanation of why it's not been publicised there, namely that it can't be objectively confirmed by embedded reporters. It's highly unlikely the US army would allow damaging pictures of the devastation in Fallujah to be taken by said reporters... it's likely that the most reliable reports will take a while to trickle out.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
I know there was someone from Bretagne who did the whole Hastings thing, but I forgot who won. I really do think I recall the Breton winning and not the Brit.
The French were allied with Scotland (and Norway) up to the act of Union, so you could count that as internal squabbling.
-
Anything that is meant as an area effect weapon, meaning cluster bombs, fire bombs, ultra-heavy bombs, excesive usage of M203 blindfire, air-plane strafes and god-knows-what-else just seams a bit odd in a urban environment with civilians in the area.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It's not the fact they can do what they like that scares me, so much, so could the Greeks, the Romans etc, it's what they are choosing to do with that ability that scares me.
So you're against bringing freedom and democracy to a region that has not ever had it in it's 10,000+ year history?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
So you're against bringing freedom and democracy to a region that has not ever had it in it's 10,000+ year history?
if you by "bringing freedom and democracy" means "loot and pillage", then yes. also bear in mind that you are full of crap. please supply a credible source saying that the people there hasn't been free at least once since civilization itself was born in that area.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
So you're against bringing freedom and democracy to a region that has not ever had it in it's 10,000+ year history?
No, he's against bringing mass death to the region.
-
Its funny how "bringing democracy" means:
-Killing in excess of 100,000 civilians
-Using several types of illegal weapons
-Setting up an unelected puppet government
-Imprisoning thousands under inhumane conditions without due process of law.
-Laying siege to heavily populated cities, and proceeding to shell/bomb the hell out of them.
-Building several permanent military bases set to house tens of thousands of soldiers.
-Effectively banning indepedent media
If that's democracy, whatever you do please keep it the hell away from me.
-
Methinks Liberator is having difficultly grasping the concepts of freedom and democracy.
If it were democratic, then the US wouldn't be killing and/or de-homing hundreds of thousands of people just to get a few hundred terrorists.
And freedom can exist without democracy. But being American and stupid - he assumes the two things are synonymous.
-
When the US start killing people wholesale and dumping them, by the hundreds of thousands, into the nearest pit, call me.
Europe is just pissed off because they weren't consulted and their little money scheme got busted up and the Arabs are pissed off because we're doing away with their clan based monarchys and making them get along like modern, civilized people should behave and stop killing each other over arguments that should've died with the generation that started them.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
When the US start killing people wholesale and dumping them, by the hundreds of thousands, into the nearest pit, call me.
Europe is just pissed off because they weren't consulted and their little money scheme got busted up and the Arabs are pissed off because we're doing away with their clan based monarchys and making them get along like modern, civilized people should behave and stop killing each other over arguments that should've died with the generation that started them.
Quoted for posterity.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
When the US start killing people wholesale and dumping them, by the hundreds of thousands, into the nearest pit, call me.
Europe is just pissed off because they weren't consulted and their little money scheme got busted up and the Arabs are pissed off because we're doing away with their clan based monarchys and making them get along like modern, civilized people should behave and stop killing each other over arguments that should've died with the generation that started them.
Oh dear.
Quick reply;
Europe - agreed napalm is an illegal weapon after the horrors of its use in 'nam.
US - Lancet has credited 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq due to the war and its consequences
Money scheme - plenty of Americans made money off of Iraq. In fact, I remember Rumsfeld pleaded to get some sanctions lifted so he could do business with Saddam (before coming to power). Also based on as yet unproven allegations.
Arab monarchy - this is coming from the government which props up the likes of the Saudi and Kuwaiti monarchies... truth be told, the US will oppose democracy in most Arab countries because any elected government would be their enemy. Oh, and of course there's the historical stuff such as the Shah in Iran.
-
and don't forget the monarchy in Jordan and the military junta in Pakistan, two close US allies. Not to mention the UAE, Qatar and all the other tiny Gulf monarchies who's names elude me at the moment.
-
I think it's more a question of the fact that America is defining what Freedom and Democracy is, and then bringing that to other countries, when, in truth, Freedom and Democracy should be defining America, not the opposite. :(
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I think it's more a question of the fact that America is defining what Freedom and Democracy is, and then bringing that to other countries, when, in truth, Freedom and Democracy should be defining America, not the opposite. :(
well put
-
zigackly
-
Come on, you should understand people like Lib...
They ran out of commies and needed another target to discharge their frustration...
Kinda like Germany, 1923.
-
I think it's more a question of the fact that America is defining what Freedom and Democracy is, and then bringing that to other countries, when, in truth, Freedom and Democracy should be defining America, not the opposite.
That's a nice idea. However, human-conceived concepts are defined by human interpretation. Force is always going to equal mass x acceleration whether we like it or not, but "freedom" and "democracy" are not universal laws, so we're going to bend them to suit the desires defined by our instincts.
-
Indeed, my idea of Freedom and Democracy is different to anyone elses, the same goes for all of us to some degree.
But to a certain degree, the American public has allowed some of it's Freedoms to be 're-defined', and knowingly so. If that can happen in the US itself, then surely those same prohibitions must be taking place elsewhere, and without the concern of keeping the voting public happy.
-
You know, this country just seems to keep on doing incredibly stupid things....
-
Hokay, I'm convinced. I've been in support of the action in the Gulf up until now, as you all probly know, but using napalm... that's going too far. I mean it's basically a small WMD, in that it indiscriminatly kills everyone within the (wide) target area and quite frankly that's just taking the piss.
If our Tony pulls out now I'll be forced to agree with the decision... and then of course I've got the fate of the Iraqi people under US authority on my concisous. Thank you very ****ing much, George.
I wonder - if this had come out a few weeks back, would the election have turned out differently?
-
You know, they're just using the most cost effective weapon...
-
Probably not. The gay marriage ammendments to bring out the conservative vote, combined with a remarkably effective PR campaign against Kerry, probably would have given Bush most of the battleground states he won.
-
Thing is, to once again paraphrase Reverend Martin Luther King,
Freedom is like life, it cannot be given in part, you either have it or you do not.
Says it all really ;)
-
I rather prefer the quote by Benjamin Franklin. "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
-
Originally posted by Janos
bbbut i dont want to refgister
If you use FireFox or Mozilla Suite, you can download the bugmenot (http://bugmenot.mozdev.org/) extention and bypass that registration crap. :)
-
Originally posted by Zarax
You know, they're just using the most cost effective weapon...
I doubt it; you're not talking massed troops here, but small groups. Given the social/political requirement to rebuild, it does seem a bit daft to use such a weapon.
Guess I have to add the caveat that the use of napalm in Falluja remains unconfirmed, though.
-
It makes sense if you think about who gets the contracts to rebuild...
-
:lol::lol:
-
I guess the US just said "Aw to hell with it" and just decided to Napalm those pesky snipers. :lol:
-
It'd be pretty funny if the Iraqi's started launching makeshift napalm mortars at the US troops.
The stuff's not even hard to make, especially in a ****ed-up city where looting 5000 packs of ceiling tiles is so easy.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
And even though the Romans won, they still commented on how eternally stubborn and impossible to control we were ;)
That's because for a long time you were just a bunch of barbarians, didn't know what was good for you. ;)
But who would need to invade England now-a-days anyway, just bomb it from afar. You would all be too busy *****ing at the government and appaled how the Queen flicked off some Nationality bla blah etc etc. to defend your own country. :p
Nearly all predictions of a post apocaliptic war describe that the world will be run from Australia which would be least impacted by such things...
-
Too many ignorant and hateful children......
-
Ignorance is bliss.
And its not hateful, its just poor taste in humour.
Oh and does anyone else see the irony in 'pyro-maniac' being against Napalm?
-
"Ban the napalm, save the world for conventional pyros", perhaps?
-
Hehe. Perhaps... perhaps indeed.
Now when I think of his name, I hear the Doom 3 theme music ringing in my head and something burning. :p
-
Originally posted by Grug
That's because for a long time you...........which would be least impacted by such things...
Even bombed and beaten, we'll never be broken.
If you think Iraq is bad, just wait till someone tries to land troops on English soil. Fallujah will look like a walk in the ****ing park.
And then there's the Scottish to consider. There's tons of small towns in Scotland where English troops get the **** beaten outta them for no reason.
-
It's actually "pyro-manic" and not 'pyro-maniac"
-
Don't you think that's the view on nearly most free reigning nations / countries.
But like I said, who would want to invade england anyway? Unless for total extermination of a possible threat.
Which nation / country would most likely attempt to invade England?
My money's on China, who will probably rule the world in a few hundred years...
Good buy queen, hello emperor... :p
@Raa - I Stand corrected. Still is Ironic though. :p
-
an0n, what are you gona do, you don't have any guns. :p
-
As long as I have an abandonned Wilkinsons, an arc-welder and a baseball bat (and masses of disgruntled citizens) - I can make enough incendiary devices and improvised weapons to fight off pretty much anyone who wants to **** with me.
And Britain's not like Iraq. You can wander off into the wilderness and still live very comfortably.
And there's all those Irish ex-terrorists to call upon.
-
[q]And then there's the Scottish to consider. There's tons of small towns in Scotland where English troops get the **** beaten outta them for no reason.[/q]
I dunno where you get your info lad.
We may despise England on Burns Night/St.Andrews Day and at a football match, it usually ends there.
[q]And Britain's not like Iraq. You can wander off into the wilderness and still live very comfortably.[/q]
Here I'm with you. Scotland alone has enough wild territory to **** up any regular army if they're invading it. Hell the Govan Team would be enough...
-
As a Roman Soldier once wrote in his Diary....
Any soldier who has feared an enemy warrior with sword and shield need only look upon an angry mob of peasants, armed with anything from Pitchforks to Boating Hooks to never fear a sword again.....
-
Long live Rome: Total War...
-
Well, the romans were scared ****less by a bunch of naked Scotsmen charging into battle swords waving, so yeah.
And indeed, going geurrilla in England is easier then doing so in Scotland.
As for the guns, each soldier you kill must have a gun, so if you kill enough soldiers, you'll get enough guns. And when you've got enough guns, you start robbing their ammo convoys.
-
Originally posted by vyper
We may despise England on Burns Night/St.Andrews Day and at a football match, it usually ends there.
It was on Britains Toughest Towns a while back.
-
Anyway.... as a Scot, I cannot imagine who would want to invade England or Scotland either, but if they did, I would leave the States to return home to fight...... and I would bring weapons with me. LOTS.
-
Well for one thing, who wouldn't want to get their hands on those awsome kilts?
I know a few people who would kill for one, get a large enough group and hey, who knows what invasion force might rock up?
-
Anyway... back to the women and children of Fallujah being napalmed to death...