"Leslie Swartz" wrote:
YGBSM!

"Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, LBJ has Got To Go . . . "

Oops sorry wrong decade, d00d.

Steve Swartz

(Napalm a WMD? "Asked and Answered, Counselor!")


"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in
message
...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 20:49:35 +0100, "John
Mullen" wrote:



Napalm was used in the Pacific Theatre
(and Italy?).



Napalm is *not* a CW any more than phosphorous
grenades are.

Many consider both to be so. See for example
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/...ertharigel.htm

They certainly seem, at least arguably to
breach both the Hague and Geneva
Conventions.

Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs
of War on Land, The Hague,
October 18, 1907 - (Hague IV)
Preamble, paragraph 8 - De Martens clause:
"Until a more complete code of
the laws of war has been issued, the High
Contracting Parties deem it
expedient to declare that, in cases not included
in the Regulations
adopted
by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents
remain under the protection
and the rule of the principles of the law
of nations, as they result from
the usages established among civilized peoples,
from the laws of humanity,
and the dictates of the public conscience."
Annex to the Convention, REGULATIONS RESPECTING
THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF
WAR
ON LAND, Section II, Chapter I, Article 22:
"The right of belligerents to
adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited."

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions
of 12 August 1949, and
Relating to the Protection of Victims of International
Armed Conflicts
(Protocol I of 1977) prohibits employment
of "weapons, projectiles and
material and methods of warfare of a nature
to cause superfluous injury or
unnecessary suffering" (Article 35, paragraph
2), as well as employment of
"methods or means of warfare which are intended,
or may be expected, to
cause widespread, long-term and severe damage
to the natural environment"
(Article 35, paragraph 3; also: Article 55).
The use of DU weapons also
violates provisions of the same Protocol,
regarding the protection of
civilian population against effects of hostilities
(Article 48; Article
51,
paragraphs: 1, 4-c, 5-b; Article 57, paragraph
2-a-ii).

John




Then how come some 20+ countries have DU rounds for aircraft and armor?
And it's not just the US and Brits who have used it in combat: When the Russians
first went into Chechenya, they did face Rebel armor-mainly T-55s and T-62s.
I'm sure Russian tankers put DU 125mm rounds into said Rebel armor from their
T-72s and T-80s.
Napalm or Napalm substitute? Great for "killing things that kill Marines",
to quote a USMC officer in GW II. Bottom line-a treaty is only as good as
its enforcement mechanism. And where were these lilly-livered crybabies when
the Iraqis used DU ammo from their tanks during the Kuwait invasion and GW
I?

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!