U.S. using chemical weapons in Afghanistan: report

You have Iran trying to stir the pot against NATO after they got butt hurt over the Wiki leaks because of the facts that their Arab SUNNI neighbors don't like them.
Good thread going on here ---> Iran Tries to Reassure Gulf States


In the end ooz the report is inconclusive.
They even admit that.
So now what?

PEACE
Slay

Originally posted by SLAYER69
You have Iran trying to stir the pot against NATO after they got butt hurt over the Wiki leaks because of the facts that their Arab SUNNI neighbors don't like them.
Good thread going on here ---> Iran Tries to Reassure Gulf States


In the end ooz the report is inconclusive.
They even admit that.
So now what?

PEACE
Slay

"It seems people are stuck with 'America cant do no wrong' disease, or at least, 'it is really hard to believe America can do no wrong intentionally' disease. "
[oozyism]

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not, none will suffice. "

[Joseph Dunninger]



regards
oz

Are there A-10s in Afghanistan?
Are they firing their GAU-8?
Is the GAU-8 using 'depleted' uranium rounds?
Do any 'insurgents' use any armoured vehicles?
Do they have tanks?
Has the use of DU rounds been proven to be safe?
QED: The US is using radioactive rounds on non-armoured vehicles.

How many DU rounds have been fired by A-10s in Afghanistan?
What is the current background radiation vs. the levels prior to A-10 deployment?
Is the Abrams the only US vehicle capable of DU rounds? No.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


I'd first like to suggest that it may be a little more helpful to note who you are quoting, not only for the response of the member debating you, but also for the reader to have some kind of clarity. You are quoting and answering at least two different people.

Now without further adieu:

In my eyes, wars are meant to be battlegrounds for ideals and the strongest ideal determines the outcome of the fight and the future for all people involved.

Well then your eyes deceive you. The strongest ideal does not determine the victor in battle. I suggest you read a very good ancient work entitled, "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. That should give you a good idea of what wins battles and ultimately wars. While ideals might play a small part in the outcome of a war, they make little, if any, difference to a battle. A battle is going to be won by whoever has the biggest and best weapons. It is going to be decided by whoever has the most discipline and training or the best strategy and tactics, the most heart. Ideals have little to do with the battlefield, other than maybe moral, motive and courage. You are sadly mistaken if you believe that you can go into battle with the strongest ideals and come out on the other side as a victor. That would be a fatal mistake my friend.

It's also important to note that one could lose a battle, yet still win the war.

Why must weapons be used that create perpetual sickness and horror be used for gaining geopolitical terrority?

It's not as if these weapons are intended in that way and in fact, it is a rare side-affect. It really takes a lot of dissipated and concentrated DU to affect civilian life, though a simple clean-up, however expensive it may be, would surely minimize any risk that DU creates. These weapons are necessary though because we don't have another technology with the same capabilities. Of course we could just use bigger explosives, though that would create much more collateral damage than the DU.

You know, it is just the reality of war. War isn't pretty and there are very real consequences. If you don't like those consequences or you don't think they are justified, then don't let your leaders wage a war in your name. That is our responsibility as citizens in a democratic republic. Our government is supposed to represent our will and our soldiers and service-members ultimately carry out that will. You can't fault the soldiers for simply carrying out the will of the American people. Now before you say, "well the war isn't the will of the American people, it is the will of the 'Republicrats' (Dems and Repubs)", you would be wrong, as it is the will of the American people. We have safety mechanisms in place to keep our government in line, so if we don't hold our government accountable and make them represent our will, then by default, whatever they do is our will, as we don't stop them.

In sum, war isn't pretty and DU is just a necessity of war. It isn't any uglier than any other aspect of war. If you don't want war, then don't make war but once you do make war, you can't tie the hands of those you send to war because you and your neighbors would lose.

If it had happened to me, I would spend the rest of my life advocating and probably fighting against the forces that employ such unnecessary measures.

First of all, they aren't "unnecessary measures", as DU armor and munitions are absolutely necessary for the war effort and national security, regardless of whether you or I agree with either war. Without it, we wouldn't have armored vehicles or anyway of armoring our vehicles, nor would we have a way of penetrating our enemies armored vehicles. Think about that for a moment. An enemy would easily be able to use a fe tanks to drive back back American forces and an invasion of America would be relatively easy.

This goes for diplomatic security too, such as the security for our President. No matter how much you dislike our President, he is still our President and I'm sure that you don't want him assassinated, right? Without DU armor, our President wouldn't have effective armor on his car or helicopter.

Unfortunately, steel plating simply won't work anymore. Why? Because our enemy has DU munitions. Those DU munitions will penetrate steel like a hot knife through butter. In fact, doing away with DU, would be tantamount to bringing a knife to a gun-fight.

So I understand the necessity of DU. I don't feel that the government was reckless with their use of it, as they didn't try to hide the fact that it was dangerous, nor did they neglect to give us the proper training to handle the substance. Had they tried to hide the danger -or fail to acknowledge it, I would probably be angry and engage in activism to change that policy.

Furthermore, I'm a soldier and I understand the risks that are related to my profession. It's something that I had to consider before devoting my service. I ultimately accepted the danger/risk when I agreed to serve. In my opinion, the Army didn't do anything wrong.

Fortunately for me (and a few others that I worked closely with), the cancer was found very early while I was in the hospital for an unrelated injury. The Army is the one who figured out that this cancer was due to DU, which actually did a lot more good (though I'll refrain from listing why). Had the Army not admitted to this fault, it wouldn't have been so easy to figure out how I got the cancer in the first place and I certainly wouldn't have been able to prove it. Again, I don't think the military or government did anything wrong and in this particular case, they did everything right.

Did Saddam use radiological weapons on Fallujah since 2003? Because there's been a staggering rise in illness and deformities there since 2003, when the marines conducted heavily combat operations there.

Or how about Bosnia? Saddam did not deploy chemical weapons there, but the US used depleted uranium

Well considering that both Iraq and Bosnia had Soviet weapons, they should have had weapons and armor containing DU. Again, DU is found in very common armor and armor-piercing munitions. DU was probably more used more extensively due to battle, though these DU weapons probably helped us minimize civilian casualties. For instance, a 25mm DU round could be used to take out an enemy position behind armor, instead of a huge bomb from an aircraft that would otherwise need to be used.

Look, I don't agree with this war anymore than the next guy, however the war is reality so I do agree with protecting our troops. I do not support sending our troops into a gunfight with a knife, even if I don't support sending our troops into a fight in the first place.

Maybe a solution could be better decontamination, but I just don't see a viable way of reducing the use of DU, simply because we don't have a way from keeping our enemies from using the technology. If one side has DU and the other doesn't, it is going to be a very lopp-sided fight. Furthermore, in some instances, DU munitions can replace bigger, more destructive fire-power that would in turn create much more collateral damage.

I know it's not. But when exponentially more soldiers are labeled with it [PTSD] after being involved in a conflict involving DU, then it appears quite suspicious. What are soldiers affected by DU being labeled as, if I may ask (because I don't think I've come across a real explanation by the US government for why their own soldiers are sick from their own weapons yet).

I can assure you that PTSD is not caused from exposure to DU. PTSD has to do with memory and the "fight or flight" response. It's whenever something tragic or scary happens, and is sort of burned into your memory, where you brain kind of keeps triggering that "fight or flight" response. I know that this isn't the technical description of it, but it is an accurate description none the less.

Furthermore, not just soldiers get PTSD. Rape victims, child abuse victims and others who have faced violence or a traumatic experience, often suffer from the condition. I can guarantee that people were suffering from PTSD long before the advent of DU and they will unfortunately be suffering from it, long after DU is replaced with other technology, at least until we can invent an effective treatment. Your connection between PTSD and DU is sort of "freakonomical", and any relation between the two are superficial, at least from a statistical point.

I posted that in response to people legitimizing its use. I don't care where the hell it is used, it is a genocidal weapon.

It is not a genocidal weapon or munitions component. It does take a lot of exposure to the substance in order to do harm. For instance, you can sit in a tank that is armored with DU for years, without ever having negative consequences. Now if someone fires a DU round into that tank, then you risk inhaling it, though I think the possible inhilation of DU will be the least of you worries in such a case. Also, in a town that has seen fierce fighting, there could be a lot of uranium contamination, though that should be an issue with the clean up or decontamination, not its use.

Depleted uranium is no more dangerous than natural uranium, from my knowledge at least and natural uranium is naturally occurring the Earth. In fact, the ancients used it as a yellow coloring, as has been found in certain Roman glass for instance.

And considering my country has a major hand in Afghanistan, it is my nationalist (and future professional) duty to know exactly what the hell we are supporting there. Our government claims that we are there for humanitarian reasons, yet we aren't stopping US deployment of a genocidal weapon.

You have it all wrong. Instead of protesting the use of this technology, which is unrealistic and won't be realized by the way, you should be advocating the clean-up of areas after its used. If areas are decontaminated after being exposed, any risk would be greatly reduced. However, that would be a very expensive endevour, though does life really have a value? Lets just suppose that activism does lead to the government halting use of DU. That still won't stop other countries from using it, thus your activism is misplaced, to say the least. It becomes a mute point.

Arguing against the use of DU is just as pointless as arguing against the existence of fire-arms. You may not like fire-arms (or DU) but the reality is that it doesn't matter, as it is here and it is reality. Because others have fire-arms (or DU), then reality dictates that you do too, lest you be taken advantage of and held hostage by it. Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need either DU or fire-arms but I think we all know better, as our world is far from perfect. Because it is absolutely impossible to rid the world of either DU or fire-arms, we just have to adapt and ensure that we can compete. Anything else is just simply unrealistic.

I think that what is happening, is people are just trying to make the government and their war effort look bad in anyway that they can. This is just a simple tactic of making the US look bad in this war that we seem to be knee-deep in. Now I'm not saying that the US is justified in this war, only that these charges are complete BS. Everyone uses DU, so why then is it only the US being condemned because of it? I think the motive for stories like this are crystal clear.


--airspoon

Originally posted by oozyism
Read between the lines Slayer, you have been around longer for you to get fouled:

We are talking about bombed sites, weapons used by US/UK, not weapons used by Taliban.

OK you agree a large percentage of the Taliban get their support from Pakistan.
You read between these lines

It is thought that between 17 and 20 countries have weapons incorporating depleted uranium in their arsenals. They include the U.S., the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, Iraq and Taiwan

Read that?...?----> Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Two countries that are known for their support of the Taliban.

Linky down here

The international medical community has been warning the US gov about the indiscriminate use of DEPLETED URANIUM PROJECTILES in their heavier caliber weapons such things as tank busting rounds for automatic cannon etc.
The depleted uranium has ended up in very fine dust form after impact, and has gotten into Iraqs water syatems etc.The rate of child deformity has skyrocketed in Iraq, as well as kidney cancer(the stuff gets strained out by the kidneys, and builds up in there...eventually causing them to go cancerous, or giving the victim leukemia as well...
Afghanistan will have an equal fate depending on the amount of armour piercing rounds the allies shoot over there....
Depleted uranium is also giving cancer to the troops who fire the weapons too.
An abrams tank has this ammo stored in a rack around the inside of the turret about head hieght.Our guys are getting high irradiated about the head and it could cause brain cancer too.
WP(white phosphorus) shells are used as incindiary and marking rounds...The phosphorus will not go out when ignited and will burn right through your skin and flesh.
This is what they shelled Fallujah with that caused all the uproar back then, some called it a chemical weapon....
Thermobaric explosions are augmented with the creation of a hot plasma with the initial explosion, and the secondary explosion ignites this plasma creating a devastatingly higher intensity blast many times what the explsives alone could have done.
Cocussion is the main killer with these and people have been turned practically inside out though standing well outside of normal safety limits.
The humans casualties have been found dead even a mile away, bleeding from every orfice, even their eyes.
The Mther of all bombs, or MOAB also kills this way with a kill radius of over a mile from the blast.
ugly stuff with the depleted uranium lasting billions of years.....

reply to post by airspoon


The reports suggest the contamination is from new Generation Warheads which uses NU.

In that sense US can get away with it, but it didn't because investigation suggested that it wasn't natural Uranium because of the small cermic particle which was present in the samples.

That particle is produced in high temperatures after impact.

The reports have also ruled out any other explanations for such a high % of DU/NU.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Not caring about open debate is the problem in case you missed it. Debate is the exchange of information whuile using facts to support or dismantel an argument.

Don't lecture me on debating. I've been involved in debating, specifically in the political spectrum, for many years. I don't know what you are or do in your life beyond ATS, but let me assure you that I am involved in politics and underworld operations and I've seen enough of the world to form my own opinion. There is a difference between posting some quoted sentences to make you look like you are smart, and posting your actual opinion that you are able to mentally put together based on facts that you've studied for a long time. I try to post my opinion.

You hate American and anything dealing with America. Any info that paints the US in a bad light is taken as gospel truth as if handed down by Allah herself, while any info that contradicts or does not support your claims is immidiately pushed off and dismissed.

I don't know what fairy tale world you live in, but don't assume you understand my logic. I don't hate America, but I certainly despise the direction that it has been taken on by its neoliberal fascist leadership.

Ever hear of "Don't Tread On Me"? This is a virtue that the US was founded on, and I admire it. But now the US is a police state; it is run by profit-seeking corporate elite; and it will use whatever means it has at its disposal to achieve power on a global level. The US now interferes with people all over the world, and in this example, is poisoning the land and people of Afghanistan. This is what I hate, which is my instinct as a human to do so. I guess if I had more fluoride in my drinking water I may accept the new American crusade in the Middle East that has murdered over 120,000 people just so the US can secure oil resources. Is this wrong of me to think this way? Because I don't live in the US, and I don't agree with US policies. I am an observer and this is what I am independently observing. You don't like the facts? Tough for you.

America can do no wrong diease, followed up by the typical Nazi comparison. Seriously, this is why your arguments never work. As I said before, you have made some good posts, good info, only to derail your own threads with your American hate speech.

Hate speech? So now if we openly disagree with American policies, we are now haters? That's a pure example of "American exceptionalism". I'm sure Americans are not familiar with this term, but at least Canada is.

Here is a small clue to help you distinguish between Americans and Nazis. If the US were Nazis, you would not be alive to voice your discontent. Why? because if Nazis ruled you would be considered inferior and sent off to a death camp. Why? because you would be considered subhuman and not worth the time, and a waste of good air and resources.

First of all, how do you know what the Nazis would do? Were you alive during 1932-1945 or do you just read allied propaganda about them?

Secondly, you're the one treating Oozy like he is subhuman because you don't agree with his words. He isn't American nor is he in America, so your entire idea here is garbage.

I'd first like to suggest that it may be a little more helpful to note who you are quoting, not only for the response of the member debating you, but also for the reader to have some kind of clarity. You are quoting and answering at least two different people.

Actually I was quoting three people there. I'm only quoting people in hopes that the people who I am quoting will recognize their own words and respond.

Let me be clear. I'm really not too interested in who is saying what. I'm only interested in what is being said. It is conception and perception that matters with text. If we were talking in person, then it would be a different story.

Well then your eyes deceive you. The strongest ideal does not determine the victor in battle. I suggest you read a very good ancient work entitled, "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. That should give you a good idea of what wins battles and ultimately wars. While ideals might play a small part in the outcome of a war, they make little, if any, difference to a battle. A battle is going to be won by whoever has the biggest and best weapons.

I've looked over Sun Tzu's work. "All war is deception" is all that I recall from his book. And no, human will is much more important than the biggest guns. I am discouraged to hear what your words as they are the words of a soldier, but ultimately I am not surprised.

That would be a fatal mistake my friend.

It has not killed me yet. In fact my more honourable adversaries have bowed down to my strong beliefs that I would even die for.

It is too bad that I was born into a world of indiscriminate killing, but there are still some chivalrous persons out there willing to understand an enemy well enough, not to necessarily agree with them, but to back off in order to fight them another day if the will is still there to fight.

It's also important to note that one could lose a battle, yet still win the war.

As proven by the Vietnamese, who lost many battles to the technologically superior Americans yet still won the war through the will to survive through their ideology. Same can be said for the Mujahedin against the Soviets.

It's not as if these weapons are intended in that way and in fact, it is a rare side-affect.

These weapons are necessary though because we don't have another technology with the same capabilities.

I completely disagree. The US could be rolling around Afghanistan in Shermans, armed with garands and bazookas, and still effective engage the Taliban.

The CIA liason in Afganistan during the Soviet occupation provide Lee-Enfields to the Afghans instead of newer AK-47s. He did this because he believed the .303 British WWII-era rifle was more effective. There was even some reports of Enfields, loaded with heavier rounds, taking out a Hind by shooting the vulnerable tail rotor (this is from my recollection of the book "Ghost Wars" that I read many years ago).

If you don't like those consequences or you don't think they are justified, then don't let your leaders wage a war in your name.

It isn't my country doing this. It is my country condoning this though, and I do not just sit on my hands while this is happening either.

That is our responsibility as citizens in a democratic republic. Our government is supposed to represent our will and our soldiers and service-members ultimately carry out that will. You can't fault the soldiers for simply carrying out the will of the American people. Now before you say, "well the war isn't the will of the American people, it is the will of the 'Republicrats' (Dems and Repubs)", you would be wrong, as it is the will of the American people. We have safety mechanisms in place to keep our government in line, so if we don't hold our government accountable and make them represent our will, then by default, whatever they do is our will, as we don't stop them.

That is piss-poor logic.

You are right, it is the American peoples' responsibilities. However, the government does not represent the will of the American people. The American government is controlled by external forces, and the current government does not care what the American people think and in fact, work to make them stupid enough to continue this travesty.

Though I agree, the US people should step up and do more, and by doing nothing they allow it to happen, but I do not believe that they condone this (if they are even informed of what is going on in the first place).

In sum, war isn't pretty and DU is just a necessity of war.

War has been going on since the dawn of man. DU has just been recently thrown into it. It is not necessary, it is just another tool to subdue the general population of the enemy so they are too weak to rise up against invasion and assimilation.

As for DU in Chobham armor... well, the Russians arm their tanks with ERA such as Kontakt-5 or Kaktus. They are both tested as being able to defeat APSFDS rounds, such as Abrams ammo that contains DU penetrators.

Here is a quote from the Kontakt-5 wikipedia article:
"...and in the US, Jane's IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness confirmed that "when fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the depleted uranium penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time.""

So are DU weapons necessary now? Maybe against unarmored insurgents...

Look, I don't agree with this war anymore than the next guy, however the war is reality so I do agree with protecting our troops. I do not support sending our troops into a gunfight with a knife, even if I don't support sending our troops into a fight in the first place.

You are saying that the Americans would be fighting against a far superior enemy without the use of DU? Because even without DU armor or weapons, the US would still be at a far superior advantage with air strikes alone (look at drone activity in Pakistan).

Maybe a solution could be better decontamination, but I just don't see a viable way of reducing the use of DU, simply because we don't have a way from keeping our enemies from using the technology.

I don't understand why you keep claiming that your enemies are using DU against you. Do the terrorists have nuclear power plants where they can produce weapons from nuclear waste to use on you?

Furthermore, in some instances, DU munitions can replace bigger, more destructive fire-power that would in turn create much more collateral damage.

Every action has a reaction. The more convenient your weapon is at killing, it will create other unintended results in the process.

I can assure you that PTSD is not caused from exposure to DU.

You missed my point entirely.

Labeling those affected by DU as having PTSD is a blanket statement to cover up the reality of the situation. The US government was trying to say that the Gulf War Syndrome was PTSD too, were they not?

It is not a genocidal weapon or munitions component. It does take a lot of exposure to the substance in order to do harm. For instance, you can sit in a tank that is armored with DU for years, without ever having negative consequences.

C'mon now. We both know that DU affects people after it is pulverized into dust by exploding upon a target.

Depleted uranium is no more dangerous than natural uranium, from my knowledge at least and natural uranium is naturally occurring the Earth. In fact, the ancients used it as a yellow coloring, as has been found in certain Roman glass for instance.

Now this is getting stupid. Natural uranium is not radioactive waste produced from nuclear reactors, which is what depleted uranium is.

And I live in Canada, the top producer of uranium resources in the world. I breath a lot of natural uranium into my system every single day, and I have more damage done to me from cigars, vodka, coffee, bleached supermarket meat, genetically modified vegetables, etc.

You have it all wrong. Instead of protesting the use of this technology, which is unrealistic and won't be realized by the way, you should be advocating the clean-up of areas after its used.

I advocate against the use of a weapon internationally recognized as a weapon of mass destruction. I do this alongside thousands of scientists, activists, journalists, politicians, lawyers, etc.

And we should focus on cleaning it up? How the hell do you clean up radioactive dust that has contaminated entire countries, and flow through the wind into other countries (and Europe even)?

Arguing against the use of DU is just as pointless as arguing against the existence of fire-arms.

Not even close. Also, just for your information, I advocate for every single person to own a gun. Disarming individuals while arming governments is madness, in my opinion.

I think that what is happening, is people are just trying to make the government and their war effort look bad in anyway that they can. This is just a simple tactic of making the US look bad in this war that we seem to be knee-deep in. Now I'm not saying that the US is justified in this war, only that these charges are complete BS. Everyone uses DU, so why then is it only the US being condemned because of it? I think the motive for stories like this are crystal clear.

This is not BS. Everyone does not use DU.

Lets look at landmines, for example. Canadians have signed (and pushed for) the anti-landmine treaty. On a NATO base Americans told Canadian troops to place landmines in the ground and we refused, so the Americans laid them out anyways despite the fact that we advocate against landmines because they indiscriminately kill many more civilians than they do enemies. Canadians at least, fight with morals and not with depleted uranium, landmines, or incendiary weapons.

The reports suggest the contamination is from new Generation Warheads which uses NU.

What is "NU"?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

What is "NU"?

I think I was suppose to say NDU??
Non-Depleted Uranium:
www.mindfully.org...

Anyways:

Non-Depleted Uranium (NDU)

Non-depleted uranium is uranium with a U238/U235 isotopic ratio comparable to natural uranium but having quantities of U236 and presumably plutonium.

U236 is a man-made element not found in nature. It's presence suggests that the uranium has been through a reactor or has been mixed with reactor by-products.

While some studies have shown that U236 may be produced in nature by natural reactors, the quantity of U236 is 10,000 times less than the amount UMRC is measuring in NDU.

Uranium and Weapons

Modern warfare since the Gulf War in 1991 has employed weapons which make use of DU for its properties:

It is cheap and available to arms manufacturers free of charge.
It has a very high-density which makes it a superior armour piercing material.
It burns upon impact producing intense heat and easily cuts through steel.
It acts as a self-sharpening penetrator.
The danger posed by DU in weapons:

~When DU weapons hit a target, a fine aerosol of uranium oxides is formed. The majority of particles (46 - 70%) are less than 10 microns.

~The aerosol-like particles (dust) are easily inhaled into the lungs.

~These fine particles can be spread by the wind and are readily re-suspended by modest breezes or vehicle and personnel movements. There is no existing study measuring the distance traveled by such particles. However, there is a documented instance were particles were physically captured 42 km from a test site. (Dietz 1999).

~This only proves migration beyond the specific site but does not preclude the possibility that particles can travel a great many times more kilometers. Fluid dynamic studies report that particles fewer than 5 microns can remain almost permanently suspended in the atmosphere.

~While some of the DU is soluble, the majority (in the form of other oxides) is insoluble and remains in the body for years. Once in the body, DU slowly spreads from the lungs, mainly into the lymph nodes and bone. Excretion from the body is very slow.

~The uncontrolled use and spread of uranium goes against the scientifically established conventions for handling radioactive substances and contravenes international laws. See the case made by Karen Parker at the UN that DU weaponry is illegal under existing human rights and humanitarian (armed conflict) law

~It is estimated that 300 - 800 metric tons of DU were deposited in the battlefield in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Dr. Doug Rokke (DU expert and former US army physicist) estimated that 120 to 480 million grams of DU would be aerosolized if 40% of the DU were burnt up.

~These airborne and respirable sized particles will be radioactive for billions of years into the future."

reply to post by oozyism

When o when oozy are you going to learn that 99 percent of what you consider to be 'proof' or 'truth' is pure propaganda bullhockey?

Your sources are always radical anti american sites, it is you who are seeking justification for your hate of America, and accepting any source of so called proof. It leaves you looking like a foolish hate monger.

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by oozyism

 

When o when oozy are you going to learn that 99 percent of what you consider to be 'proof' or 'truth' is pure propaganda bullhockey?

Your sources are always radical anti american sites, it is you who are seeking justification for your hate of America, and accepting any source of so called proof. It leaves you looking like a foolish hate monger.

The above quote has absolutely no substance.

Why is everyone moaning about the source?

I have already mentioned in this thread that it is not about the source, it is about the content of the source.

If you disagree regarding the content of the source, then put it forward, and bring your evidence to support your point of view.

Many in this threads at least had the courtesy to do that, what are you offering?

Do you want to be another oozyentologist?

reply to post by oozyism


Let me just throw this around for ya, consider this:

What if, Afghanistan is doing to themselves, yes allowing children to be used as collateral damage, just so they can say that the USA did it and gain more anti american hate/sentiment?

No proof right?

Well there is no proof as to what you are saying either, so we are even on that point.

I personally think that using DU should be a crime against humanity and those authorising its use jailed.

It is also a very stupid tactical weapon.
Using it has just supplied any dedicated 'terrorist' group with the radio-active component
for use in a dirty bomb.
Someone willing to accept the RADs can just pick up shell fragments,
or topsoil showing high levels of radiation (geiger meter in hand).
pack it a safe container and pass it on to others for concentration and inclusion in a device.

And, what about the levels that US soliders could pickup when passing through or clearing areas that have just been pounded by DU munitions?
Wait for the Veterans Claims just like agent orange.

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by oozyism

 

Let me just throw this around for ya, consider this:

What if, Afghanistan is doing to themselves, yes allowing children to be used as collateral damage, just so they can say that the USA did it and gain more anti american hate/sentiment?

No proof right?

Well there is no proof as to what you are saying either, so we are even on that point.

What equates to proof in this case?

An American confession?

I am going to make few points here.

1. Phosphorus Bomb? - No such thing in the US arsenal.

2. DU munitions. The only thing the US uses DU for is in anti tank rounds, (Imagine a big ass lawn dart) Insurgents have no tanks. see where I'm going?

3. US is not using chemical weapons. our troops walk pretty much every where, wouldn't work out too well. We haven't done that kind of stuff to our troops since the 60's at least. But insurgents have gotten a hold of mustard gas rounds and used them in IED's before.

4. If our troops were allowed to use "any means nessecary to win" we would have by now. Our troops hands are tied.

5. Russia was at war in that country for how long? and russia is not as inhibited as the US when it comes to war.

6. You dont think all the dope they grow and smoke over there has anything to do with birth defects?

I'm not saying we should be over there, because we shouldn't, its pointless and we should have left a long time ago. If the US was going to accomplish something over there I think it would have happened by now.

Originally posted by watchitburn
I am going to make few points here.

1. Phosphorus Bomb? - No such thing in the US arsenal.

Believing your government is a natural thing.

2. DU munitions. The only thing the US uses DU for is in anti tank rounds, (Imagine a big ass lawn dart) Insurgents have no tanks. see where I'm going?

Believing your government is a natural thing.

3. US is not using chemical weapons. our troops walk pretty much every where, wouldn't work out too well. We haven't done that kind of stuff to our troops since the 60's at least. But insurgents have gotten a hold of mustard gas rounds and used them in IED's before.

Believing your government is a natural thing.

4. If our troops were allowed to use "any means nessecary to win" we would have by now. Our troops hands are tied.

Believing your government is a natural thing.

5. Russia was at war in that country for how long? and russia is not as inhibited as the US when it comes to war.

Believing your government is a natural thing.

6. You dont think all the dope they grow and smoke over there has anything to do with birth defects?

Believing your government is a natural thing.

I'm not saying we should be over there, because we shouldn't, its pointless and we should have left a long time ago. If the US was going to accomplish something over there I think it would have happened by now.

Believing your government blindly is not a natural thing.

Let me see if I can get this straight, air is contaminated around bombed sites (US/UK bombs), high contaminations in those areas, birth defects etc. You are claiming that this is not American bombs, because you think it might be the drugs, or insurgents?

Hitler was right about propaganda, I'm starting to think he was a genius

reply to post by oozyism


Ok dude, continue to live in your hateful little box. Your responses aren't even valid replies to the statements.

Originally posted by watchitburn
1. Phosphorus Bomb? - No such thing in the US arsenal.

Tell that to the children in Fallujah who had their faces melted off by American white phosphorus bombs. But I guess since they are called flares, which are used to attack ground targets during the day (also a favorite Israeli tactic), they are not viewed as weapons?

White phosphorus use by Americans in Iraq was even in that Michael Moore movie (Farenheit 9/11 I think?).

2. DU munitions. The only thing the US uses DU for is in anti tank rounds, (Imagine a big ass lawn dart) Insurgents have no tanks. see where I'm going?

DU is used in much more than tank rounds. It's loaded into pretty much any heavy caliber machine guns (like A10 cannons) to air-to-ground bombs. Apparently a lot of the missiles deployed in Iraq had DU too for penetration properties. I'm not an ammunition expert, but I know that DU is used extensively in ammo of all kinds.

When o when oozy are you going to learn that 99 percent of what you consider to be 'proof' or 'truth' is pure propaganda bullhockey?

Your sources are always radical anti american sites, it is you who are seeking justification for your hate of America, and accepting any source of so called proof. It leaves you looking like a foolish hate monger.

Who are you to judge what is credible sources or not? You just made up facts to insult oozy and therefore I don't think anything you have to say is credible. You want proof of what he is saying? Then take what is given to you and stop picking and choosing what convenient information you want to enter your brain.

It's simple really, anyone who defends the use of depleted uranium projectiles, especially against the "forces" that it is being used, is a monstrous blot on the face of humanity and they deserves the condemnation usually reserved for paedophiles and their ilk.

reply to post by oozyism


No one is saying America can do no wrong, but your blatant hatred confuses your thinking. The PPM or PPB takes time for levels to rise. So lets look at history shall we. Who has been there before and lost and had access to Uranium in their weaponry...........
If you guessed the former U.S.S.R then your right on the ball, if not, then I appologize for your stupidity. The U.S. isn't innocent by any means, but we aren't always the scapegoat and can't except all the worlds problems.