I'm not for depleted Uranium especially since in both places it wasn't really needed to penetrate armour, however, I am curious why the outrage now vs. then. It's just interesting.
Because everybody is a giant hypocrite, and you exposed it with all of your painstaking research of mid-90's depleted uranium internet postings. Or maybe the scale of the two engagements and hence the amount of DU exposure is vastly, vastly different.
Where are the dead Kurds after GWI? They may have fled, but nothing here indicates more mass murders. Whatever, ostrich. Saddam put down a rebellion, what did you expect him to do when his people took up arms against him. This is still MILES away from Milosevic murdering innocents. Saddam was not a threat to anyone, was not engaging in genocide or "ethnic cleansing," had no WMDs, and was not connected to terrorism. His military was drastically depleted and could not have defended itself against invasion from Turkey, much less mount an attack against any of his neighbors. Milosevic was killing hundreds of thousands and was actively engaged in said activity when we sent troops in. There is a vast difference for anyone not wearing GOP colored glasses.
Thank you all for being merciful and not lambasting me on this statement. It made no sense at all. What the hell was I thinking, typing that gobbledy goop in. Anyway I meant to say that There was an absence of violence on a large scale prior to our invasion, and we started the violence on that scale. Sorry for posting thes especially muttled few lines.
Is anyone else concerned with the improper grammar used in this article? Maybe the increased levels of DU in the atmosphere have eradicated the editor's grammar knowledge/skills... But in all seriousness, it's not just DU that's causing all our health problems. I do agree that it's a big factor for those who are around it all the time. But for the rest of us, there are a lot of other factors involved in our increasing health problems.
Are you talking about me? I wasn't really concerned all that much about the Iraqi War (or the Afghan war, or the Balkan war, or even the 1st Gulf War for that matter) until one morning in early 2003. I knew nothing about DU then. I always naiively assumed US fought "cleanly" to defeat its enemies in these wars - the superiority of our military would make one think it's so unnecessary for US to employ any offensive tactics deemed illegal by conventional war standards. After all, wasn't US all over Saddam for his alleged weapons of mass destruction? That morning, I happened to watch on TV Dr. Helen Caldicott's interview with C-SPAN. It was the first time I heard someone talking about depleted uranium, the use of DU by US military and its ally, and the everlasting deleterious effects of DU on human beings. I was literally stunned - perhaps most troubled by the irony of a military campaign to ascertain a somewhat dubious WMD claim while deploying a WMD (in disguise) of our own in the process. Later through more research on DU and all the events related to this War, I sadly discovered many Americans (including those on this BBS), while having gradually acknowledged the War "is not worth it", never truly realized how immoral this War really is - the hypocrisy in itself, the damages done to US reputation in the world, the huge economic burdens on this country, the lost lives of a thousand plus US soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, the ruined lives of many more to come in unforeseeable future, and missed opportunities of winning against terrorism. And all these are for accommodating lies, denials, and cover-ups? True, the Balkan conflicts are controversial. But in no equal term are they comparable to this War.
Not to derail the thread, but I suggest you look into Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Stockholm Convention. That convention was based on Swedish studies showing the significant levels of POPs inside their women's breast milk. Since their organic hormone-like properties are readily stored in fat cells, all humans can officially be considered synthetic. I can't recall the estimated amount of artificial substances inside our bodies offhand... Smaller animals are already facing teratogenic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reproductive issues from these and other artificial chemicals. As the top of the food chain, the bioaccumulation involved doesn't sound savory. The world has become a giant chem lab for this stuff in the atmosphere.
With US pioneering the development, manufacture, sale, and use of DU, at least 15 countries are known to have DU weapons in their military arsenals - including those which haven't claimed to possess "traditional" nuclear weapons like Greece, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Thailand, and Taiwan. And it's rapidly spreading to other countries. You better wish there will no be all-out wars involving mechanicized armored apparati, for which DU-tipped weapons are specifically aimed. Or you can hope enough people on earth are sufficiently educated about DU as a "weapon of indiscriminate (and long-lasting) effect" such that it is regarded just as unholy as other WMDs. This kind of recycling (depleted) uranium waste is a perfect example of a technological advance doing nothing but destroying mankind. EDIT: Pakistan is deleted from the original post.
Yeah, I learned about bioaccumulation of many different chemicals and compounds somewhere along the way in one or more of my bio classes. It's rediculous how many different sources of health problems there are in the atmosphere and in the world in general. And it's even more rediculous that most of these sources were created by us and we're now reaping the effects of our technological advances.
In 1996 and 1997, the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, passed a resolution to ban the use of depleted uranium weapons. The Subcommission adopted resolutions which include depleted uranium weaponry amongst "weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction, ... incompatible with international humanitarian or human rights law." (Secretary General's Report, 24 June 1997, E/CN. 4/Sub.2/1997/27) A UN report of 2002 states that DU weapons also potentially breach each of the following laws: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in or after armed conflicts. According to the UN, the resolutions in 1996-97 were passed because DU breaches several international laws concerning inhumane weapons: it is not limited in time or space to the legal field of battle, or to military targets; it continues to act after the war; it is "inhumane" by virtue of its ability to cause prolonged or long term death by cancer and other serious health issues, it causes harm to future civilians and passers by (including unborn children and those breathing the air or drinking water); and it has an "unduly negative" and long term effect on the natural environment and food chain. In detail: 1. Weapons may only be used in the legal field of battle, defined as legal military targets of the enemy in war. Weapons may not have an adverse effect off the legal field of battle. DU shells burn into fine particles which remain in the air or the environment. So they infect others over a wide range, and future passers-by, with uranium poisoning. [failed TERRITORIAL TEST] 2. Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A weapon that is used or continues to act after the war is over violates this criterion. [failed TEMPORAL TEST] 3. Weapons may not be unduly inhumane. Weapons that cause cancer and illness long after the war are widely considered to be legally "inhumane". Health issues to unborn children and civilians may also be crimes against humanity under international law. [failed HUMANENESS TEST] 4. Weapons may not have an "unduly negative" effect on the natural environment. The dust from DU impact becomes widespread in the environment, and (as with other heavy metals) becomes highly concentrated within living beings and the food chain. [failed ENVIRONMENTAL TEST] DU weapons even violate the US own military field manual on The Law of Land Warfare: "It is especially forbidden to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. …Usage has, however, established the illegality of the use of lances with barbed heads, irregular-shaped bullets, and projectiles filled with glass, the use of any substance on bullets that would tend unnecessarily to inflame a wound inflicted by them, and the scoring of the surface or the filing off of the ends of the hard cases of bullets."
That's news to me. Turkey may have been (actively or otherwise) developing nuclear weapons, but have they tested one and openly declared they are now an official member of the "prestigious" nuclear weapon club (known to me are US, Russia, China, UK, France, India, and Pakistan)?
Something for you war mongers to salivate over. American pilots bombing and strafing, with depleted uranium weapons, helpless retreating Iraqi soldiers who had already surrendered, exclaimed: "We toasted him…. we hit the jackpot….a turkey shoot….shooting fish in a barrel….basically just sitting ducks… There's just nothing like it. It's the biggest Fourth of July show you've ever seen, and to see those tanks just 'boom', and more stuff just keeps spewing out of them… they just become white hot. It's wonderful." (LA Times and Washington Post, both February 27, 1991)
I think Turkey had nukes before India and Pakistan. I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure the first seven were US, Russia, China, UK, France, Israel, and Turkey.
I don't know what else to say about your insistency on Turkey having nukes. I couldn't find any link on internet, but maybe you have some inside info unbeknownst to the general public, which suggests Turkey have possessed nuclear weapons? As far as Israel goes, it has never openly declared it has nukes, though it hasn't denied either. Would be an interesting BBS topic. For now, I have to give 'em "benefit of the doubt".
This issue has come up upwards of 1,000,000 times. It pains me to see it return with the same irrational luddite paranoia just because the word uranium is in the name. First, allow me to point out that this woman is a freaking geologist! My grandfather was a geologist, and I respect geologists a great deal, but she doesn't exactly have the background to be making informed statements about radiation medicine. Yes she worked at Lawrence Livermore. Great. I used to work at Methodist Hospital, but I'm not about to start preforming heart surgery. On average the depleted uranium used for munitions is 7/10ths as radioactive as the uranium ore mined from the ground all around the world by miners in places like Canada and Australia. This is before the impurities have been removed. Uranium miners suffer from the same degree of job-related illness as all other types of miners. Depleted uranium is the slag left over when all the useful uranium isotopes have been removed from pitchblende. There are plenty of toxic things being used in Iraq. Nitrogen tet, used to fuel rockets, is one that comes to mind. Because most people don't know what that is, however, it seems that people find it easier to scare up support by invoking the mysterious uranium and visions of nuclear fallout. How pathetic. I would go on but frankly I tire of having to dig up all the actual real scientific evidence which demonstrates my point every 6 months. If you really want to know the truth, go look for some actual science. There is no data to support the outlandish claims made against DU.
So, all this BS from Bush about stopping Iraq and their WMDs only for us to basically indiscriminately use DU weapons(which are basically WMDs themselves) anywhere we wage war? We don't even need to use these weapons against this caliber of enemy but they still use them. If I were contemplating joining the service to fight for our country, then this kind of stuff would seriously make me say "go to hell" to any recruiters. It seems all they care about is filling their quotas. They don't care about the soldiers fighting. What...Bush is gonna give a pep rally speech every few months saying what a great job everyone is doing fighting for freedom while not paying our soldiers enough only to come home and find out they lost their jobs while also dealing with health issues and having to return to Iraq for another tour next year. A f-ing bunch of BS is what that is. I'm having a hard time finding anything to like about higher-ups who make the decisions in government and the military. Their so two-faced it is ridiculous. It doesn't help that their freaking idiots. How is it a military advantage to use DU weapons if your troops are on the ground to inhale the aftermath? Do they care? Obviously not. Not to mention the poor Iraqi civilians who are living in that invisible contamination doing things like drinking contaminated water and taking scrap metal from the bombed out tanks which shoot these DU shells contaminating themselves and everyone else. They want to pretend DU doesn't hurt anyone until years later...like Agent Orange. It's Vietnam all over again. The claim to be helping the Iraqi people achieve liberation while contaminating their land is a great lie. You, the Iraqi people, are free to have birth defects and bad health for years to come. Your welcome! Sure, we're your friends. One thing for sure...I don't want to see the US start another war EVER. If we have to react to someone waging war against us, then fine. That would mean we have no choice. If we freaking end up starting a war with Iran or North Korea, then I'm f*cking moving to Canada. There's no way any president or anyone should be telling us we need to start another war to protect ourselves from another supposed threat which is a figment of the imagination and also a by-product of piss poor foreign policy. I think the biggest mistake Bush made was promoting the idea after 9/11(where his paranoia from his cocaine days came back to fruition) that countries would give terrorists WMD in the future and, therefore, have no accountability basically discounting the idea of "mutual deterence". With no precedent, noone can make that claim. I also don't even want to start a war to protect another country which has been invaded. It's not our freaking place. It's the world's place. Let NATO or the UN deal with it as a whole without us undermining the process by getting cleverly worded resolutions passed to trigger a war. Let us play an equal role...rather than a leading role. Whatever...I'm just ranting now. I'm a ranter. Anyone who deludes themselves into thinking the US is just some goodie-goodie two shoes country who is all for promoting freedom and democracy for all is just blinded by our own propaganda. Almost everything our government does(with maybe a few exceptions) is part of some bigger, unadmirable agenda in the scope of serving the self-interests of government and not of the benefit of ordinary people. It kind of makes me wish the South would have won the civil war(as long as they wised up to how wrong slavery was and is). I wonder what the world would be like today if the North had lost. Hmm. As General Cartman Lee once said, "Long Live the Confederasa!" . Rant off, Surf
