Talk:Mark 77 bomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The external link to dailykos.com should be deleted. DailyKos is a political opinion site and it is inappropriate to reference it. Instead, the original news article that the DailyKos site refers to should instead be linked.

Opinions are crucial tools in presenting information. You will note that there are many wikipedia articles that quote pundit's opinions when relevant. also you can sign your name by doing four tildes (~) in a row. TitaniumDreads 21:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Factually inaccurate.

First: "Use of incendiary bombs against civilian populations was banned in the 1980" is not strictly correct. The exact quote from the CCW is:

"It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects."

Second:

The CCW consists of 4 separate protocols (or rather three plus an addendum). Any nation which signs two or more of those protocols is considered a signatory. The US has signed the agreement, just not Article III on incendiary weapons.

Nachtrabe 10:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the incorrect fact that white phosphorus is added to the bombs and that it was an oxidizing agent, but the references don't seem to support the fact that any oxidizers were used. Can anyone prove/disprove this fact?

Anonymous

The references apear to be one sided in their views, and the references used are mostly factualy inacurate. If we are using biased references, they need to be replaced. If we are using factualy inacurate references they need to be replaced. Who would ask to prove/disprove any topic using baited references? One must use all knowledge availible to gather references and facts, not trapping course of underated news castings and magazine articles comming from anti war administrations. Ask a proffessional technition as to what is placed into the bombs, not a journalist.

Gatwood

[edit] Saves Lives

M77 Saves lives. Our troops. M77 is a pain in the neck to use. Isn't even practical a lot of times. However, it is a useful tool to have in the bag when the alternative is our troops taking a lot of casualties because of the type of fighting that will happen. Get over it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.147.19 (talk • contribs) 23:29, November 6, 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about your troops? I certainly don't. This is a wikipedia article, not a FOX News handout.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.247.235.47 (talk • contribs) 00:13, January 30, 2007 (UTC)

Interesting comments from Warner Robins, Georgia and Tampa, Florida. Sounds like you might be on the same side though. --Dual Freq 00:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether an individual approves or disproves of our troops is irrelevant. One is right, this is a Wikipedea article, so it must be one sided, not a slanderous piece of material, whether one agrees with the Iraq war or not. The references given must not be all negative, but must come from an individual who is well versed with the subject; not an overzealous, accusing person. Yet it is very clear, a Mark 77 bomb does not contain Napalm, or the chemical structure for Napalm. We all know this from High School chemistry, so why attack the American troops through an article? The troops don’t even make the weapons. Calm down and be an activist in the proper manner.

Gatwood