if you guys werent wearing headphones id swear you were telemarketers.
ot: leave robtronik alone
-
john gordon
- Posts: 2680
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 12:24 am
- Location: Delaware
the pratical reason for depleted uranium:andydes wrote:As for the DU, I can't see how anyone could see that as justifiable. That's is a subject that has shocked me since the first Gulk War. If anyone wants to enlighten me on the virtues of shooting nuclear waste at people, I'm all ears.
it rips the shit out of armored vehicles...
If you compare the number of bodies in one dead tank crew vs. the number of deaths caused by a live tank crew - you end up saving more lives in the long run.
If I was rolling my A10 in on a column of tanks and wanted to do as much damage as I could leaving enough time to roll back out and live - I'd be wantin' some depleted uraninum rounds
I know this sounds callus and offensive to those vehemently opposed to war, but that's what militaries are for: "killing people and breaking shit"
- r
ps. if you look at the way the first and second World Wars began - you may want to consider that: "WW3 has already begun".
We probably won't call it WW3 until it's over
(which is when WW1 and WW2 got their names)
(I just hope Einstein was wrong about WW4 being fought with sticks and stones)
Of course you attacked the messenger. If Leuren Moret cites a study showing that a significant portion of the people of Afghanistan have radiation poisoning, you focus on the person talking about it, not on the study.robtronik wrote:I didn't attack the messenger, I only pointed out the obvious bias within the content of the letter sent to congress about the very issue you are using her to represent facts!deva wrote:yes, when you cannot refute the message, attack the messenger.robtronik wrote:
Interesting person, this Leuren Moret is. Here is a quote from a letter she wrote to a Congressman appealing his interest in the DU controversy:
And do note, that the majority of information in my post has nothing to do with Leuren Moret. There are plenty of independent medical sources about the levels of DU contamination in Iraq and Afghanistan
We have knowlingly committed an horrific crime against the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq
This is calculated misdirection.
Self-lies help perpetuate the crimes. Again:
"The UMRC field team was shocked by the breadth of public health impacts coincident with the bombing. Without exception, at every bombsite investigated, people are ill. A significant portion of the civilian population presents symptoms consistent with internal contamination by uranium."
That you and many other people will seek to justify the contamination of millions of people with radioactive uranium shows how unbalanced the psyche of the U.S. has become. And those justifications are the same used to justify the killing of millions of Jews in the 1940's
Here are some photos of Iraqi babies deformed from DU:
http://www.xzone-radio.com/uranium.htm (warning - shocking graphic photos)
Why don't you go tell the parents that we had no choice, that we had to drop 2000 TONS of radioactive material on them. It is all Saddam's fault. He made us do it, really, we had no choice!
In 100 years, Saddam could not have perpetrated as much evil upon the people of that nation as we have in little over a decade.
so then, why isn't more being made of this by anyone else? Explain to me why that is the case. We certainly have a motivated democratic base that wants to cut down any and all support for the invasion of Iraq.
Not even Kerry has said anything about this... WHY?
Thanks,
rob.
Not even Kerry has said anything about this... WHY?
Thanks,
rob.
http://www.robtronik.com | DJ Mixes, Blogtronik, Event Schedule
We don't have a choice.robtronik wrote:And as for imposing on them? We don't have a choice.
We had to do it.
We don't have a choice.
We had to do it.
We don't have a choice.
We had to do it.
We had a choice to attack another country or not. Doing so was a war crime under international law. There was no UN authorization.
Nobody laments the loss of Saddam, and to suggest that people somehow support Saddam for being against the war is insulting.
Are the people of Iraq better off?
Well, Iraqi Christians are worse off
***
GOP representative Ron Paul says:
"One question the war promoters don’t want to hear asked, because they don’t want to face up to the answer, is this: “Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms?” The answer is plainly no.
Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet as Foreign Minister – something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It’s strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq."
***
Certainly the 100,000 to 200,000 dead Iraqi civilians are not better off. The city of Fallujah is not better. The millions of Iraqis contaminated with uranium are not better off.
And no you cannot lay the blame at the feet of Saddam. It was OUR choice to launch a war and the results and responsibility for the outcome is ours.
***
Representative Paul again
"Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?
Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and elections followed – not the other way around...
Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in place and the next election – supposedly the real one – is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election at all?"
From another article:
"Amnesty international has found that the amount of rapes, abductions, and killings of Iraqi women has increased since the invasion of Iraq, and these incidents have restricted the movement of women to their work and school because they fear for their lives. Women rights activists are often threatened and even killed in Iraq today. Also women have been sexually abused and threatened by U.S. forces. In fact, after a massive gain in women’s rights in the 1980’s, women’s rights had its biggest fall after the first Gulf War."
did you read the poll results done in June? Just wondering...
rob.
rob.
http://www.robtronik.com | DJ Mixes, Blogtronik, Event Schedule
rtopia wrote:
the pratical reason for depleted uranium:
it rips the shit out of armored vehicles...
If you compare the number of bodies in one dead tank crew vs. the number of deaths caused by a live tank crew - you end up saving more lives in the long run.
how can it possibly be either practical or save lives if the lagacy of radiation poisoning lives on for generations???
according to the United Nations and the Health Physics Society, specialists in Radiation Safety, there is no known adverse effects of DU except for those immediate soldiers who are part of the firing of shells with DU - and even then it appears that irritants are minor.
They are, in fact, tracking soldiers that have embedded DU in them from warfare over the last few years to see what the adverse affects are. So far, none reported.
http://hps.org/documents/dufactsheet.pdf
How does this square with your findings?
rob.
They are, in fact, tracking soldiers that have embedded DU in them from warfare over the last few years to see what the adverse affects are. So far, none reported.
http://hps.org/documents/dufactsheet.pdf
How does this square with your findings?
rob.
http://www.robtronik.com | DJ Mixes, Blogtronik, Event Schedule
incidentally Rob, what is your deal with all this? Why are you so into the idea of this war?robtronik wrote:according to the United Nations and the Health Physics Society, specialists in Radiation Safety, there is no known adverse effects of DU except for those immediate soldiers who are part of the firing of shells with DU - and even then it appears that irritants are minor.
They are, in fact, tracking soldiers that have embedded DU in them from warfare over the last few years to see what the adverse affects are. So far, none reported.
http://hps.org/documents/dufactsheet.pdf
How does this square with your findings?
rob.
For me personally War should be the last resort when all other means have been exhausted, and even then I would think it should only be if your homeland was actually threatened.
Really, why would anyone actually want to justify all this death, when for you personally it has no bearing on your own personal life?
okay - I'll get to the heart of it:
1) I support the removal of Saddam for the reasons given prior to invasion.
2) I realize there is a war on terrorism that is tied to changing the environment in the middle east
3) I believe we have an obligation to rebuild Iraq and put in a new, sustainable government because of our dismantling of the prior government
4) I don't believe the U.S. is the source of all evil on the planet, in fact, I believe quite otherwise despite our many faults
5) I believe that we owe it to our military personnel overseas to provide them the benefit of the doubt and our support until their mission is accomplished.
6) I believe Saddam had the chance to not go to war, but he didn't take our word for it that we were going to remove him otherwise.
7) I believe we did try all manner of negotiations with Saddam with the U.N. security council resolutions, sanctions, and the like that he did not honor.
8) I don't support war as the first option by any means. But it is never not on the table if needed. Diplomacy means nothing without leverage in some capacity.
9) I don't mean to minimize the death that occur when war is waged. Its all very sad on all sides. But I also believe that it is a natural part of the human existence at this point and sometimes we are part of that destruction. Its sad, but inevitable it seems.
10) Ultimately I believe that we have a multi front war on islamism that feeds radical terrorists. The first front was the removal of Saddam and the Taliban. The second is changing the societal forces that breed extremism by introducting democracy and capitalism for the people in the region. The third is security and police action to track down these individuals who are directly planning attacks on us. And finally, the fourth front is education on the principles of freedom, freedom of religion, voting, etc.
Please understand that I don't want to see people die. That's not my wish. But I am also realist to know the history of all such movements - and they all have bloodshed. It is the unfortunate nature of human beings to be stupid in this way and we don't necessarily have the power to change that. Especially when we face a possible existential threat due to WMDs, nuclear proliferation, and the willing and able martyrs who want to see it through. 9/11 was, if anything, a clear revelation in this area and to ignore it, not act on elimination of the things that bred it, is a clear invitation to more death and destruction on a scale unimaginable compared to what we have seen to date.
And I am not one to sit back in principle and ignore the threat as many here seem to suggest by not providing any alternative plans to the one's I've stated above (and have been stated ad naseum by Bush over the last 5 years).
If there is a better plan, I'm all eyes... lay it on me/us.
rob.
1) I support the removal of Saddam for the reasons given prior to invasion.
2) I realize there is a war on terrorism that is tied to changing the environment in the middle east
3) I believe we have an obligation to rebuild Iraq and put in a new, sustainable government because of our dismantling of the prior government
4) I don't believe the U.S. is the source of all evil on the planet, in fact, I believe quite otherwise despite our many faults
5) I believe that we owe it to our military personnel overseas to provide them the benefit of the doubt and our support until their mission is accomplished.
6) I believe Saddam had the chance to not go to war, but he didn't take our word for it that we were going to remove him otherwise.
7) I believe we did try all manner of negotiations with Saddam with the U.N. security council resolutions, sanctions, and the like that he did not honor.
8) I don't support war as the first option by any means. But it is never not on the table if needed. Diplomacy means nothing without leverage in some capacity.
9) I don't mean to minimize the death that occur when war is waged. Its all very sad on all sides. But I also believe that it is a natural part of the human existence at this point and sometimes we are part of that destruction. Its sad, but inevitable it seems.
10) Ultimately I believe that we have a multi front war on islamism that feeds radical terrorists. The first front was the removal of Saddam and the Taliban. The second is changing the societal forces that breed extremism by introducting democracy and capitalism for the people in the region. The third is security and police action to track down these individuals who are directly planning attacks on us. And finally, the fourth front is education on the principles of freedom, freedom of religion, voting, etc.
Please understand that I don't want to see people die. That's not my wish. But I am also realist to know the history of all such movements - and they all have bloodshed. It is the unfortunate nature of human beings to be stupid in this way and we don't necessarily have the power to change that. Especially when we face a possible existential threat due to WMDs, nuclear proliferation, and the willing and able martyrs who want to see it through. 9/11 was, if anything, a clear revelation in this area and to ignore it, not act on elimination of the things that bred it, is a clear invitation to more death and destruction on a scale unimaginable compared to what we have seen to date.
And I am not one to sit back in principle and ignore the threat as many here seem to suggest by not providing any alternative plans to the one's I've stated above (and have been stated ad naseum by Bush over the last 5 years).
If there is a better plan, I'm all eyes... lay it on me/us.
rob.
http://www.robtronik.com | DJ Mixes, Blogtronik, Event Schedule
The practicality lies in saving lives to have more left over to fight with than your enemy does.forge wrote:rtopia wrote:
the pratical reason for depleted uranium:
it rips the shit out of armored vehicles...
If you compare the number of bodies in one dead tank crew vs. the number of deaths caused by a live tank crew - you end up saving more lives in the long run.
how can it possibly be either practical or save lives if the lagacy of radiation poisoning lives on for generations???
You're absolutely right about the future generations.
This is about fighting and winning a war today.
It wouldn't be necessary to rip those tanks in half if the crews would just surrender.
- r
(yes - I'm taking the piss)
robtronik wrote:according to the United Nations and the Health Physics Society, specialists in Radiation Safety, there is no known adverse effects of DU except for those immediate soldiers who are part of the firing of shells with DU - and even then it appears that irritants are minor.
They are, in fact, tracking soldiers that have embedded DU in them from warfare over the last few years to see what the adverse affects are. So far, none reported.
http://hps.org/documents/dufactsheet.pdf
How does this square with your findings?
rob.
Some study is assuming DU exposure is similar to regular uranium exposure.
For example, quoted from the pdf you link to
"Are there any health effects associated with exposure to DU?
DU behavior in the body is identical to that of natural uranium."
This is a faulty conclusion.
The military is aware of DU's harmful effects on the human genetic code. A 2001 study of DU's effect on DNA done by Dr. Alexandra C. Miller for the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Md., indicates that DU's chemical instability causes 1 million times more genetic damage than would be expected from its radiation effect alone.
It is the small size of the particles upon explosion that creates the extreme hazzard. Regular uranium dust is much bigger than DU dust.
and of course the empirical evidence shows otherwise too. Iraqi doctors are seeing mutliple cancers and birth defects not seen before except in Japan after the dropping of the nuclear bombs.
The report you cite is also wrong in stating that only soldiers on the battlefield are at risk. A number of U.S. soldiers are suffering from DU sickness who were never near exploding shells.
The report you cite said it is tracking veterans who have DU shrapnel, but again this is not the same as the nano sized dust particles.
109 of 3000 Italian troops who went to Iraq have died of DU poisoning. They were only there a relatively short time.
The U.S. used at least 300 tons of DU in Iraq in 1991. One Indian doctor, Dr Mishra is studying the huge increase in diabetes in India, China and Jakarta and the links between DU and diabetes. Diabetes is currently increasing worldwide in near epidemic proportions. Cause is not established, ut it does happen to coincide with DU use.
DU from Iraq has been found in the atmosphere in the UK. This is a worldwide issue.