Support NeoGAF

[Incognito]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=647397

17 June 2005

American officials lied to British ministers over the use of "internationally reviled" napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.

Yesterday's disclosure led to calls by MPs for a full statement to the Commons and opened ministers to allegations that they held back the facts until after the general election.

Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.

But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."

Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used against military targets "away from civilian targets", he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets.

Mike Lewis, a spokesman for the group, said: "The US has used internationally reviled weapons that the UK refuses to use, and has then apparently lied to UK officials, showing how little weight the UK carries in influencing American policy."

He added: "Evidence that Mr Ingram had given false information to Parliament was publicly available months ago. He has waited until after the election to admit to it - a clear sign of the Government's embarrassment that they are doing nothing to restrain their own coalition partner in Iraq."

The US State Department website admitted in the run-up to the election that US forces had used MK77s in Iraq. Protests were made by MPs, but it was only this week that Mr Ingram confirmed the reports were true.

 

[SteveMeister]

Given the Bush White House, I seriously doubt the UK could be very effective even if it wanted to influence American policy. And any attemps by the UK to "restrain their coalition partner" (i.e. the US) would undoubtedly be met by a sharp "If you're not with us, you're against us".

 

[Deg]

And any attemps by the UK to "restrain their coalition partner" (i.e. the US) would undoubtedly be met by a sharp "If you're not with us, you're against us".

What? :lol

 

[Phoenix]

Don't worry, I'm sure other countries are looking at every possible way to influence our next elections (since they are up for grabs and anyone can support anyone and not upset anyone) so that the "neocon threat" goes away.

 

[SteveMeister]

What? :lol

I'm just making a jab at the article's UK-centric slant (which of course makes sense given that it's from a UK publication). It makes it sound as though the UK has a say in US policy.

 

[MC Safety]

Meh.

Iran #1, U.S.A., ptui! -- The Iron Sheik

 

[hXc_thugg]

Given the Bush White House, I seriously doubt the UK could be very effective even if it wanted to influence American policy. And any attemps by the UK to "restrain their coalition partner" (i.e. the US) would undoubtedly be met by a sharp "If you're not with us, you're against us".

From my point of view the UK is evil! If you're not with me, you're my enemy!

 

[Willco]

From my point of view the UK is evil! If you're not with me, you're my enemy!

ONLY REPUBLICANS DEAL IN ABSOLUTES.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

America doesn't need to care. If America wanted America could probably run 3 wars all at the same time!

 

[Phoenix]

America doesn't need to care. If America wanted America could probably run 3 wars all at the same time!

Nope. We can run two (or military is actually organized around the philosophies of fighting two major wars at the same time), but not three