[fintstone]

Originally posted by kach22i
It does have validity, because napalm is still around. Both Russia and the USA are way behind in destroying their stocks.

http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/Harigelreport.asp?p

Further more the US government has used some pretty nasty stuff in the past, like in Vietnam.......................here are a few links:

http://www.reformation.org/poison.html

http://www.vietnamese-american.org/b3.html

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/july1998/cnn2-j24.shtml

http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/sarin.htm

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm

In fact the USA used more chemical weapons in Vietnam than all the nations in all the wars in history.

http://www.vietnamwar.com/PhanThiKimPhuc.htm

NOTE: Like I said before, if it saves one US soldiers life, use all the napalm we still have - just don't tell me it's not a possiblity.

You should choose your links/proof more carefully. For example, the artlcle by April Oliver and Peter Arnett got them fired at CNN when it was proven untrue (early dan rather..LOL). The rest are no better. Just propaganda. The US did not use chemical weapons (per the common definition) in Vietnam. Napalm and defoliants are not normally considered as such.
Even if the links had been accurate, why does anything that happened in Vietnam have to do with Iraq?