The Glory of Amerikan (And UK) War

[Adam D]

In the first Gulf War our military used depleted uranium (DU) shells to destroy any military vehicle and building in our soldiers' path. DU is nuclear waste, and the reason it is used to make these kind of shells is because it is incredibly dense, and will smash through pretty much anything. These were launched by the thousands throughout Iraq. As if it wasn't bad enough, and deplorable enough, that we dumped nuclear waste all over another nation, poisoning the land and the people, Washington allowed our own troops to march through fields of DU shells without telling them or providing any sort of defense to it. This is much more dangerous to troops than virtually every chemical or biological agent because the biochem suits our troops are armed with fail to protect them adequately from nuclear radiation. Even still, troops were not ordered to wear them while in areas DU shells had been used.

Medical evidence now suggests that it was not chemical weapons from Hussein that caused Gulf War Syndrome, rather it was exposure to DU shells. Washington poisoned our own troops. And once again, Washington plans on using DU shells in Iraq, without concern for or preparation of our troops.

God Bless America, Indeed.

[Krash]

Bad enough they do it to our troops, it poisons the water and living areas of innocent people. If you ever see pictures of babies born with deformities since Gulf War I (which the allies attribute to the contamination caused by the "scorched earth" policy of the Oil Wells) you would be sickened.

[Element4040]

I consider this propaganda until either of you can prove to me with medical or scientific evidence that depleted uranium causes cancer or Gulf War Syndrome. I have not seen one bit of solid evidence to back up this claim.

I could spout off all day long about Saddam testing chemical and biological weapons on his people and attributing that to the high cancer rate in his people and infants.

Furthermore there is just as much evidence to suggest that Gulf War Syndrom was caused by the Iraqi's destroying large caches of Chemicals at the front lines at the beginning of the Gulf War.

I am not in any way claiming that depleted uranium doesn't cause cancer, I am just saying that when researching this subject I couldn't find any concrete proof that it does.

[Adam D]

For many years, western militaries, including the United States', have used shells that are tipped with depleted uranium. Depleted uranium is one of the heaviest metals, and it is this characteristic that allows shells tipped with the substance to penetrate heavily armored tanks and bunkers. During the Persian Gulf War over 900,000 shells containing depleted uranium were fired. Additionally, in the Balkan crisis over 40,000 shells containing the substance were used. Upon impact the shells explode creating dust that is contaminated with depleted uranium.

"If the US has been keeping silent, the Brits haven't been. A 1991 study by the UK Atomic Energy Authority predicted that if less than 10 percent of the particles released by depleted uranium weapons used in Iraq and Kuwait were inhaled it could result in as many as "300,000 probable deaths."


Here's some evidence:

http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/fahey.htm

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/health/11_2.htm

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/health/10_1.htm

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/health/10_3.htm

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/health/8_2.htm

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/health/8_4.htm

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1118590.stm

http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/specials/uranium/

http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dhap99f.html

http://ccnr.org/du_hague.html

http://vzajic.tripod.com/contents.html#top

http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/...ott/medico.htm

http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/bein/physic.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/du.html

[per1sh]

ouch. heh. but wait...WAIT


DUBYA IS IRRADIATING HIS OWN PEOPLE!!

TIME FOR A REGIME CHANGE!!

[Element4040]

Originally posted by Adam D
Here's some evidence:

http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/fahey.htm

Interesting article however they mention nothing about the harmful effects of DU only what it is used for as well as assumptions. The best part of evidence is that US Tank Drivers recieve .13 mrem/hr. I would counter by saying you would get more radiation exposure from 1 hour of cell phone use. Here is a link.
http://www.zdnet.com/products/storie...714216,00.html[/URL]

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/health/11_2.htm

This is an article about a canadian group examining a dump site in Quebec, there is no evidence at all about it's toxicity?

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/health/10_1.htm

Again no evidence, just an article saying they are going to do a study? Here is the title paragraph:
The Ministry of Defence announced on 14 March that whilst it believed the deployment of depleted uranium ammunition to pose minimal health risks, it was considered desirable to conduct a programme of peer-reviewed research involving independent institutions to respond to concerns that have been raised.

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/health/10_3.htm

This article pertains to Nuclear fallout, it has nothing to do with Depleted Uranium.

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/health/8_2.htm

For this one I will just take a direct quote:
According to a statement in early June by Lieutenant General Boris Alexeyev, the Russian Defence Ministry have found DU dangerous for human life and health, but only in combination with other substances.
Doesn't sound like evidence to me, there isn't even a link to the study.

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/health/8_4.htm

This is just a press release anouncing that the WHO is going to Iraq to investigate their claims that DU is causing the increase in Iraq's cancer rates. Granted I will give you that this is a little closer to the subject in that at the bottom it is stated:
. Official Iraqi figures show an increase in cancer cases from 6,555 in 1989 to 10,931 in 1997, mostly in areas bombed by U.S. led forces during the war. There is no evidence to say that this is not caused by the Iraqi government themselves. Plus there is no evidence linking it to DU.


http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

This is perhaps the most counterproductive link you could give. This article actually supports my argument more than yours. Here is one excerpt:
The health effects of uranium have been studied extensively for over 50 years. In September 1999 the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry published a Toxicological Profile for Uranium, an update to the original profile published in May 1989. While natural and depleted uranium are considered chemically toxic, they are not considered a radiation hazard.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1118590.stm

Again, there is no evidence, this article is primarily talking about NATO setting up a European conference to discuss DU. It mentions several countries are going to do research on the effects, but there is no evidence so far.

http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html

This is an article written by a journalist, and they are his assumptions alone. He give no evidence whatsoever, he is just merely reporting his assumptions.

http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/specials/uranium/

Concerns, speculation, assumptions, no studies or scientific data here.


http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dhap99f.html

This is the best article you provided and there are several indications in here that it may be harmful enough to cause cancer. The main point I got out of here that I was not aware of is that once the DU shell explodes the particles are scattered in the air. The particles would be breathed in and "could" cause cancer. They can travel as far as 25 miles downwind, but would most likely not be a concentrated enough amount. There are credible sources in here as well, namely the US Army Surgeon General that claims, that internal consumption of DU dust can "possibly" cause cancer, lung or bone. But again the radiation dose amount is unknown without further study.
I really did enjoy this article as I learned some things I did not know, but there was no evidence or proof in the article.


http://ccnr.org/du_hague.html

This article explains what DU is and what's it's health risks are, but in no part of the article does if mention it causing cancer, or for that matter what amount is considered harmful. Another good article however.

http://vzajic.tripod.com/contents.html#top

Thousands of chemical alarms sounded and numerous chemical detections by US chemical specialists with state-of-the-art equipment were made only to be ignored by American commanders. Chemical detections were also reported by French forces near King Khalid Military City and by Czech forces along the Saudi border where hundreds of thousands of United States ground troops were massed for the invasion of Iraq. The source of these detections was probably the fallout from bombing of Iraqi chemical plants.

Withdrawing Iraqi troops ignited almost 750 Kuwaiti oil wells during the Gulf War, the last of which were extinguished 10 months later, in November 1991. Petroleum inhalation, ingestion and skin absorption causes symptoms consistent with symptoms reported by Gulf War veterans.

21 different pesticides and insect repellents were used before, during and after the Gulf War, but no records were kept of amounts used what they were used for, or who applied them.

And again pure speculation with no evidence that DU is what caused Cancer in Iraqi's and Gulf War Syndrome. I would point to the above and say all those factors had just as much to do with it as the DU. While the article does go into detail about the rise in cancer rates in Southern Iraq and Kuwait, it cannot link DU to this.


http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/...ott/medico.htm


Again this article points out what we already know publicly about DU.

http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/bein/physic.htm

Here is the author of this articles background:
A writer, publicist and poet, he is not going to be providing me with any scientific proof that isn't already public. He has about as much credibility explaining the hazards of DU as me.

http://www.counterpunch.org/du.html

[URL]

I would highly recommend people to read this article, there is alot of good info in this one. But there are no sources for the data, and no "proof" that DU is causing these health problems. This article certainly does raise questions, but again I want the evidence.

I appreciate you giving me these articles, I did find some of them interesting and actually learned a few things I didn't know about DU from them. However, there is still no evidence here that says this is what is giving Iraqis Cancer, or furthermore it does not have a link to Gulf War Syndrome. The argument that we use DU in our shells and harm the Iraqi people carries about as much weight as me saying that Saddam's use of Secret Underground Nuclear facilities is giving his people cancer. Or me making the statement that his careless disposal of Nuclear Material is causing cancer in the Iraqi People. Furthermore I could claim that the destruction of Chemical Plants and munitions dumps is causing these malidies. There is no evidence to support any of these arguments and that is why I am responding in the way I did ,for people to stop making "claims" that we are poisining the Iraqi's with DU when there is no scientific data that I have seen that directly points the finger at DU for the Iraqi poplulations health problems.

Again, thank you for the research, I am not trying to be an ass, I did enjoy the knowledge.

studies have shown that du does not cause cancer! Even men with small peices of du in their body. There is no direct link between any cancer and du. du is a very safe heavy metal that is only harmful when inhaled, being that it is extremely heavy metal the particals fall to the ground at a very rapid pace. Then men with the most exposure with this vapour (in tanks hit with du shells) have shown no signs of du being a strong carcinagin.



^^^ that info came from our own state department which has been following those with the exposure to du. And has conducted studies with many other nations


the boards are full of people jumpin to conclusions with no evidence to back them up.

and for some reason everyone on this board seem to know something that a lot of us do not.

with terms like "you just do not get it"
ugh with a capitol U is all

"We give up leisure in order that we may have leisure; just as we go to war that we may have peace!" ~ Aristotle

Now He's got the right idea!

[eros]

i have the right to say this, because i've not only had to read it, but i've had to hear jeremiah go off in person....

the boards are full of people jumpin to conclusions with no evidence to back them up.

hahahahaha. dude, have you ever listened to yourself? or actually read some of the stuff you've written?

i have

and i have good reason to say what i say


now prove me wrong bitch

[seksybeetchkerri]

Originally posted by MR_J
studies have shown that du does not cause cancer! Even men with small peices of du in their body. There is no direct link between any cancer and du. du is a very safe heavy metal that is only harmful when inhaled, being that it is extremely heavy metal the particals fall to the ground at a very rapid pace. Then men with the most exposure with this vapour (in tanks hit with du shells) have shown no signs of du being a strong carcinagin.



^^^ that info came from our own state department which has been following those with the exposure to du. And has conducted studies with many other nations


the boards are full of people jumpin to conclusions with no evidence to back them up.

and for some reason everyone on this board seem to know something that a lot of us do not.

with terms like "you just do not get it"
ugh with a capitol U is all

jeremiah.. you r0ck my s0cks....

*muah* u so smart

[eros]

1)listen up genius...anything the state department says should seriously be questioned
2)there's NO FUCKING WAY that ANY study about how carcinoginic du is is gonna be conclusive at such an early date. carcinoginic studies are gonna take a bit more time
3)IT'S THE FUCKING DESERT. i work in a solids lab and i can garantee you, it really doesn't take that much force to float (desert winds) small particles (sand and errosion) a few feet up in the air (high enough to breath in)
4)stop IMing me when i'm trying to respond to your post, bitch

yes, i am saying it's funny as shit to listen to you argue your points. no, i don't think either side of this argument could come up with credible evidence at this time. it's simply too early to pinpoint an exact cause. i will, however, say that anyone that completely trusts a us source is not making a very strong argument....blah....typing, IMing, watching the daily show and doing homework all at the same time is driving me crazy

i was startin to doubt you until the last paragraph


but you are right it is in the desert. How many people are in the desert?

[darki]

Originally posted by MR_J
i was startin to doubt you until the last paragraph


but you are right it is in the desert. How many people are in the desert?

Most of the middle east.

Originally posted by WarLord
He's only trying to make the rest of us like him.

Not likely to happen. Every time I see a still shot capturing that goofy fucking look on his face, I wish I was a Tuscan Raider leading an Army of Fuck You against him. I can't be entirely alone in that.
Stupid cracker.