Monster (NUCLEAR) Babies in Iraq

reply to post by ipsedixit


I agree, but we don't know how much pressure has been brought to bare on the medical fraternity and health system, to stonewall those sort of attempts. I've read information that indicates that this has happened, especially in regard to DU health issues.

AMERICAN SOLDIERS ARE ILL AND DYING OF "MYSTERIOUS ILLNESS" -- IS IT DEPLETED URANIUM POISONING?

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
reply to post by RedMarx1867

 

Correct, I did post further up that bunker busters are generally mini-nukes, and it's highly possible that they've been used in this and other conflicts.

Ok, you have to understand, I'm a 14 year medically retired Army guy. I LIVED this. I saw things with my own eyes. I was there minute one of the war. When you were watching the breaking news reports, I was already deep into the country (I did not simply drive north across the border...I came in from the North). Iraq was disgusting, like I stated open sewage, pollutants everywhere...people cooking a block away from an oil well on fire, deformed kids, little people everywhere...stuff like that. I think Saddam treating his people bad and the people just not understanding that the things you do affect your environment and those around you caused this.

Bunker busters are NOT mini nukes. In their potential destructive impact, they can be referred to it that way, but do not confuse that with any nuclear capabilities. They are not tiny nukes. They are conventional weapons with high destructive abilities. Much like the MOAB and the Rods from the Gods.

Last, do not believe the hype about Iraq not having chemical weapons. I SAW the with my own eyes, took pictures and then several minutes late watched CIA guys take my film and destroy it and "encourage" me to forget what I saw. things like that setting in fields surrounded by dozens of dead cows and goats...and you tell me we messed the Iraqis up...

reply to post by gymbeau2000


Sorry, but I'm not buying your 'story'. As a grunt you were and still are being kept in the dark, regarding what really went on over there. You've been 'conditioned' to believe what you do, and no doubt RADIATED for your service, but if you believe you know exactly what your masters were doing over there, then I feel sorry for you.

Let's hope there's no truth to the following...

A tactical nuclear weapon (e.g. B611-11) is a bunker buster bomb with a nuclear warhead

Future Plans for a 'better Nuke Bunker Buster! Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP).

Originally posted by gymbeau2000

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
reply to post by RedMarx1867

 

Correct, I did post further up that bunker busters are generally mini-nukes, and it's highly possible that they've been used in this and other conflicts.

Ok, you have to understand, I'm a 14 year medically retired Army guy. I LIVED this. I saw things with my own eyes. I was there minute one of the war. When you were watching the breaking news reports, I was already deep into the country (I did not simply drive north across the border...I came in from the North). Iraq was disgusting, like I stated open sewage, pollutants everywhere...people cooking a block away from an oil well on fire, deformed kids, little people everywhere...stuff like that. I think Saddam treating his people bad and the people just not understanding that the things you do affect your environment and those around you caused this.

I can't let those claims go unchallenged...

Maybe what you saw (deformed children) was due to the effects of DU being used in the 1991 Gulf War:

"Iraq Charges United States, United Kingdom, With Use of Depleted Uranium in 1991 Gulf War; Also In 'Aggression Against Yugoslavia", United Nations Press Release, DC/2702, 1 May 2000.

"Saeed Hasan (Iraq) said backing away from implementation of the provisions of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) was symptomatic of an unhealthy international atmosphere ... Those actions ... had also caused damage to Iraq through the continuation of an embargo which which was nothing more than a verifiable genocide being carried out in the name of the United Nations. Iraq demanded compensation for those acts of aggression. The United States and the United Kingdom, both depositories of the NPT and permanent members of the Security Council, had also used depleted uranium in their aggression against Iraq in 1991 and again in their aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. The 300 tons used against his country had polluted Iraq's environment with radiation and significantly increased the registered cases of cancer, especially among children. The radioactive effects of the depleted uranium would continue for centuries to come unless action was taken to free his country's environment from them."

Thus, Iraq did complain bitterly to the United Nations about our use of Depleted Uranium during the 1991 Gulf War! What is the reference the Iraqi representative made to "an embargo which which was nothing more than a verifiable genocide being carried out in the name of the United Nations."? Iraq had petitioned the U.N. to relax its embargo so they could bring in medicine and equipment that would enable them to combat the effects of the uranium poisoning of their people, and the United States blocked the move!

Now, let us return to this United Nations Press Release:

"He (Iraq's representative) invited the Conference to include in its resolutions a call for a prohibition of the use of depleted uranium for armament purposes. He also invited the Conference to take concrete steps to help Iraq reduce the negative effects of that disaster on the environment and on human life, and affirm Iraq's right to demand compensation for the unjustified use against if of weapons of mass destruction." [Ibid.]

Did you catch the significance of this statement? The Iraqi representative accused the United States of using a Weapon of Mass Destruction against it during the Gulf War? What was that WMD? Depleted Uranium! Iraq said her people were suffering terribly because of their continuous exposure to this uranium. Another news story, written about 8 months after this United Nations Press Release, gives some insight into the condition of the exposed Iraqi citizenry.

Originally posted by backwherewestarted

Originally posted by strangernstrangeland

Originally posted by backwherewestarted

Originally posted by strangernstrangeland

Originally posted by backwherewestarted
It's interesting to see how people come into threads like this with an agenda. They immediately go for the conclusion that meets that agenda and ignore or attack anything else or anyone else saying something differently.

I research and expose the truth. If you call that an "agenda" so be it. As stated earlier, I have researched this subject to the hilt for about 5 years. No one is paying me to spout my opinions (like probably some others), I do this out of sheer respect for my fellow man and my utter disgust, hatred, and contempt for those that see others as nothing more than cannon fodder meant to die to further their ambitions. I would not be able to live with myself just letting this issue pass by.

I realize that your comment may not have been addressed to me, but I felt the need to respond.

I wasn't speaking about anyone in particular but you fit my post quite well. You have done all of this research and, based on what you post, have only researched one possibility...the horrible Americans. Nothing about any of the other very plausible possibilities. You have an agenda and claim to have done research that is all about backing up that agenda. Perhaps you should do some research on how to do ethical research.

How can you so casually assume that I have only researched one possibility? It has nothing to do with "horrible americans."

I am presciently aware of confirmation bias (look it up) and avoid it at all costs. My research includes almost every different point of view and I use my gift of reason to weed out the BS. You misunderstand the format of forums. Had I been the op of this post, I would have composed a pro, con and neutral side to this argument but I am only responding.

I have looked at and done deep research on the other so called "very plausible possibilities..." I would challenge you to name them. What are the other possibilities for all of the birth defects and soldiers returning with a mysterious "gulf war syndrome." Wouldn't firing irradiated rounds be part of the equation?

Please educate me on ethical research. Is that code for what research is condoned and approved by the department of propaganda, I mean "defense?" I don't do politically correct, as that is nothing more than a way to control people.

Come at me with some facts and I will (with my VERY limited time) destroy your argument.

Don't place blame on people who have actually taken the time to do their own research and form their own opinion. Focus on those that haven't learned the truth.

I could not have asked for a better post to use as an example of what I was saying. Thanks.

Anyway that you could expand on that statement? Something other than "I told ya so?" Please explain.

I think I've added as much as I can on the subject, but if people still aren't convinced of the damaging effects of DU or the possible cover-up, I include the following:

From 1962 until 1971, the American. military sprayed 11 million gallons of a dioxin-based defoliant, Agent Orange, in South Vietnam. Although dioxin is a powerful toxin, twenty-five years elapsed before the American government conceded that sick servicemen acquired their diseases after exposure to Agent Orange. Finally, in the face of incontrovertible evidence, President Clinton announced in 1996 that he would expand disability benefits for those veterans exposed to agent Orange who suffered from chloracne, porphyria, cutanea tarda, peripheral neuropathy, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma, Hodgkin's disease, multiple myeloma, prostate cancer and respiratory cancers (including cancers of the lung, larynx, trachea and bronchus). Vietnam veterans' children with congenital spina bifida were also eligible for benefits. A new study just released by the Institute of Medicine suggests that the offspring of veterans exposed to Agent Orange are at increased risk of contracting leukemia.


In 1991, thousands of veterans returning from the 1991 Gulf War reported a variety of disease symptoms, including chronic fatigue syndrome, immune dysfunction, urinary disorders, joint pains, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, but the Veterans Administration fobbed them off with the same all-purpose diagnosis they had first imposed on the Vietnam vets--battle stress. Government officials insisted that the use of depleted uranium in missiles, shells, bullets, and armor plating did not contribute to Gulf War Syndrome. The Rand Corporation announced that there was no evidence for radiation illness or kidney disease attributable to depleted uranium exposure.

Both government officials and Rand associates should have known better. As early as 1990, the defense establishment realized that depleted uranium, a radioactive, toxic heavy metal, presented health risks for troops and civilians in combat areas. A July 1990 report from the U. S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command noted that depleted uranium is linked to cancer when exposures are internal. Another report by the AMCCOM (the army's radiological task group) states that long term effects of low doses of depleted uranium have been implicated in cancer and that "there is no dose so low that the probability effect is zero."

Full story: The Depleted Uranium Cover-Up

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1

Sorry, but I'm not buying your 'story'. As a grunt you were and still are being kept in the dark, regarding what really went on over there. You've been 'conditioned' to believe what you do, and no doubt RADIATED for your service, but if you believe you know exactly what your masters were doing over there, then I feel sorry for you.

Yeah...we should believe the people like yourself that have never been there and have absolutely no first hand knowledge except what you've managed to research from other people that have also never been there and have no first hand knowledge. I mean we're only talking about a "grunt" right? What can he know? What an arrogant reply on your behalf.

reply to post by SpaceJockey1


I checked out your linked article:

www.cuttingedge.org...

"The U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute admitted: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences." ["US To Use Depleted Uranium," BBC News, 3-18-03]

In fact, internal communication reveals that, not only does the DOD understand DU long-term health effects, they also understand the disastrous costs the government would incur if they ever admitted the truth.

"The financial implications of long-term disability payments and healthcare costs would be excessive." [US Army Environmental Policy Institute: Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium in the U.S. Army, Technical Report, June 1995]

I think that by the time we get to the end of the story of depleted uranium munitions, various US government and military officials will be wanted world wide for crimes against humanity and the United States could well be a pariah nation along the lines of North Korea.

This is known for a very long time ...
A german filmmaker did a documentary about the use of DU in warzones - especially the use of DU in iraq.

Here is a short translation from google from the german wikipedia of Frieder Wagner:

Since 2003, Wagner relies increasingly on the notice of the impact of uranium munitions one, least of which is financed from own resources film Deadly Dust - Dust death in 2007. This Wagner describes his research and in particular the experience of Professor Dr. Siegwart Horst Guenther , since 1991 the use of depleted uranium ( DU ) in ammunition as a cause of Gulf War syndrome and malformations caused by genetic defects investigated and complains Deadly Dust -.'s death dust the probably the most comprehensive documentary film about the use of uranium ammunition and its consequences. On the film was followed by numerous invitations to lecture and Wagner's publications on uranium munitions.

Here is the full length documentary - it is only available in german.

reply to post by Iluna

Here is a subtitled version of the film. Many of the people featured in the film are speaking English anyway, with a German overdubbing of their voices in the original film, linked above.

In this version we hear the voices of the English speakers and get subtitles for the German narration. This version is shorter than the original version.

Google Video Link

Originally posted by strangernstrangeland
reply to post by duality90

 

Yeah, birth defects, gulf war syndrome, soldiers coming back with deadly cancers, dumping hundreds of tons of nuclear waste that will not disappear for millions of years, turning a country into a nuclear waste dump in the name of war profiteering, etc etc

yeah, sounds pretty "badass" to me.

Do some research.

Just because they do pretty horrible evil doesn't mean they can't 'sound' cool. A .50 caliber machine gun inflicts horrible damage upon the human body, but as a piece of kit it is still a pretty cool bit of machinery, even if its object is pretty horrible.

The ADS works by firing a high-powered beam of electromagnetic radiation in the form of high-frequency millimeter waves at 95 GHz[8] (a wavelength of 3.2 mm). Similar to the same way that a microwave oven heats food, the millimeter waves excite the water and fat molecules in the body, instantly heating it and causing intense pain. (Note that while microwaves will penetrate human tissue and remove the water to "cook" the flesh, the millimeter waves used in ADS are blocked by cell density and only penetrate the top layers of skin, so it will not damage human flesh[citation needed].) However DNA damage caused by these weapons is unknown and could lead to malignant cancers in operators and targets. Such is the nature of dielectric heating that the temperature of a target will continue to rise so long as the beam is applied, at a rate dictated by the target's material and distance, along with the beam's frequency and power level set by the operator. Like all focused energy, the beam will irradiate all matter in the targeted area, including everything beyond/behind it that is not shielded, with no possible discrimination between individuals, objects or materials, although highly conductive materials such as aluminium cooking foil should reflect this radiation and could be used to make clothing that would be protective against this radiation.[9] As demonstrated on Discovery Channel's "Future Weapons", all living things in the target area receive a similar dosage of radiation.

I still believe it would be technology similar to what i pasted above as a likely culprit. Brand new technology so no one really knows how much damage it will do. Nothing "future" about this technology they are using it!

reply to post by Sharpenmycleats


Sorry forgot to list my source. That copied information was from wikipedia. Dont want anyone to think i produced that info.

Warchild of Bush's Depleted-Uranium campaign in Iraq/Afghanistan sings 'Imagine':

Random thoughts of 1991 on the subject. 1200 hrs dark like night from the oil field fires. (think of communities around oil fields with elevated cancer rates and birth defects) I wonder how bad this stuff is. Sniper second floor. Someone cuts loose a AT4. How toxic is that smoke really? Boom. Ever read an explosives Material data saftey sheet. Those fumes are really bad news. Crappy building second and third floor corner collapses. No more potential lead poisoning. Wonder how much asbestos is in that dust. My point is a combat zone can be a very toxic hazmat zone even without the chemical detectors going off and DU. Just smoke from a burning building is bad news. It's a wonder any of us are still walking. Could it be the DU? I won't deny it could be but all the other crap in the air, dust, and on the ground also should be considered.