petetheisen <> wrote: > For some reason, we have not been using NAPALM in the war on terror. > Perhaps because you have misspelled it twice, tsk, tsk. > > I think napalm would have gotten the Taliban right the hell out of > those trenches a few years ago, but they just didn't use it. If we > had used napalm, many of those who are now opposing our interests in > Afghanistan would have been fried and would not be an issue now.
Nasty stuff. When used properly it can defeat an enemy quickly. I agree that in going after the mountainside tunnels in Afghanistan we could have painted the mountainside in fire and the other side of the mountains in teargas. So when the fires burned they would drag the teargas into the tunnels. We really wanted them alive to get more intell. Stephen Russell DBA / Operations Developer Memphis TN 38115 901.246-0159 http://spaces.msn.com/members/srussell/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/389 - Release Date: 7/14/2006 _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
