Should the US napalm South America (Trigger caution)?

[ZenOps]

Napalm is not specifically prohibited under the Geneva convention. However, there is no doubt that any military targets will inadvertently cause civilian deaths (women and children) even if just by wildfires and not the original blast (which can boil people alive, even if they manage to immerse themselves in a body of water)

The USA had no issues at all using Napalm in Vietnam. Arguably many of USA top politicians made their careers by service in that war (and not so much the Gulf) My vote would be "No" to use of napalm. Also "No" to acoustic sound wave weaponry.

Lets be realistic here, South America is jungle - and the USA will have an incredibly difficult time if they do not use Napalm.

[tcon]

Anyone voting 'No' obviously hasn't smelled it in the morning

[JRSC00LUDE]

WTF is the point of 96% of your posts anymore?

[e31]

I hear ya. No need to be alarmed just yet, ZenOps is being monitored.

The second he hesitates to govern himself accordingly, they'll pick him up and send him away to the padded-wall sanctuary.

[ZenOps]

Whut. South America (and the poles) are pretty much the only place the USA hasn't had a conflict yet. I'm just being realistic in that they are overdue.

You don't build nuclear aircraft carriers to *not* bomb things. If the US economy is of primary concern to a Trump admin, then foreign policy would have to at least mention the possibility of Venezuelan oil annexation through force. South America has mostly untested military from a global perspective, and could be just a matter of marching.

If Trump gets a second term, I can imagine the invasion of South America would be two thumbs up.

Binkov would do a far better estimation, maybe later in the year. Personally I think Guyana (French) would be the initial staging point for invasion.

[speedog]

Did they duke it out with Australia at some point that I am unaware of? Or Canada for that matter because there's never been an armed conflict between Canada (1867) and the USA.

[ZenOps]

Of course the US tried to invade Canada way back when, in 1812. At least the physical land masses. Which also resulted in the White house being burnt to the ground.

http://www.ndswm.org/war-overview I guess millennials have already not been taught 1991 history, Desert Storm - where the majority of a million casualties in that region happened.

If Hilary was in, I'd say round 2 for the middle east (Desert Storm II) But as is - South America is definitely on the table for potential carving.

https://nypost.com/2019/06/08/mexico...ith-guatemala/ Mexico seems to have made a "deal" with the USA, probably in exchange for not being invaded - when the USA decides to invade.

[speedog]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Of course the US tried to invade Canada way back when, in 1812. At least the physical land masses. Which also resulted in the White house being burnt to the ground.

http://www.ndswm.org/war-overview I guess millennials have already not been taught 1991 history, Desert Storm - where the majority of a million casualties in that region happened.

If Hilary was in, I'd say round 2 for the middle east (Desert Storm II) But as is - South America is definitely on the table for potential carving.

https://nypost.com/2019/06/08/mexico...ith-guatemala/ Mexico seems to have made a "deal" with the USA, probably in exchange for not being invaded - when the USA decides to invade.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was taught in school Canada did not exist as a country until 1867 and didn't we just celebrate Canada's 150th anniversary in 2017? The USA did not try to invade the country of Canada because Canada did not exist yet.

And why did you completely sidestep the Australia bit?

[revelations]

I would bet money that Zenflops is just a bored mod who loves to post random shit - to stir up shit.

Some of his posts ARE actually thought provoking but 95% are not.

[ZenOps]

Hey, just calling it the way I see it.

Moving 20,000 to 30,000 troops to a border the size Mexico is looking to "defend" would be seen as a "significant" troop movement by worldwide military standards. 6,000 is just precautionary, but still pretty damn big by my estimation considering Mexicos budget. 6,000 troops and a finished Texas border wall would have me saying that the invasion would be imminent. 30,000 troops would also have me saying invasion was imminent.



France will no doubt come into play because they still own Guyana in the area. As far as one nation can own another one without being seen as racist anyhow. If France allowed its land in South America to be used as a military staging point for the USA to use as it wanted to, I am certain there would be an attempt on Venezuela. There are many "young John McCains" out there looking to prove themselves as alpha males in the USA, and for as long as we continue to praise them for doing godless deeds - they will continue to do it.

Guided bombs have come a long way since then, but there is still a huge chance you might accidentally drop one on a school.



"Controlled" burns of potential shore landing areas would be done a few weeks in advance, to eliminate risk of shore ambush. Any hidden bunkers would technically be roasted. Jellified napalm does not come off, its literally more deadly than lead. And of course the fire has the "side benefit" of clearing out any civilian cities nearby as stern warning of what is coming. This is the argument for using Napalm. It would totally suck though, if as a South American, that was the hour that your family decided to grab some fresh water from the nearby river.

I can imagine that CBC is under hush order from the USA, probably as a side deal to keep billions of dollars worth of trade intact. France can speak its mind freely, because they don't even answer to the British.