Effects of Depleted Uranium and Chemical weapons

[KenpoEMT]

Two US warships attacked:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/19/MTFH98446_2005-08-19_21-00-04_DIT931916.html

The low tech approach to sinking a warship: assemble a launcher from whatever refuse is near-by... Glad they missed (not like they had a real chance of hitting).

I wonder if our Navy personnel get a little tired of being assaulted by make shift rocket launchers and inflatable rafts laiden with explosives. Well, bless them for their service.

 

[bushi jon]

That stuff happens in a war!!!!! Now we just need to find the bast@@d and kil him

 

[Satt]

That kind of stuff makes me glad I got out of the Navy a few months ago. I was glad to see it wasn't my old ship. If you look at what kind of ship it was it was a supply ship which has almost no defense. Coward terorist bastards.

 

[Matt Stone]

Coward terrorist bastards.

By their nature they are cowards. They profess to be Men, Warriors for their cause, which is why they attack innocent men, women, and children, noncombatants, in direct violation of their own religious dictates (the Qu'ran specifically prohibits targetting noncombatants during war operations).

They are cowards with a political agenda, usurping the Word of God for their own use, deluding the ignorant with promises of Paradise, and corrupting the faithful by perverting their belief.

Then they proclaim themselves persecuted and oppressed when the rest of the world prosecutes war against them.

Pathetic, weak, spineless, cowards. We capture them, treat them as prisoners with rights, provide for their upkeep and spiritual needs, but we're still the bad guys... Of course, they slaughter the innocent, murder captured noncombatants, and somehow they are still not the bad guys... Go figure. :idunno:

 

[Makalakumu]

Pathetic, weak, spineless, cowards. We capture them, treat them as prisoners with rights, provide for their upkeep and spiritual needs, but we're still the bad guys...

Soldiers are not the bad guys. The people who perpetrate war based on lies, ulterior motives, and self interest are the target of certain people's anger. Turning that anger toward a target it is not intended is nothing but dirty politics designed to deflect the truth.

Of course, they slaughter the innocent, murder captured noncombatants, and somehow they are still not the bad guys... Go figure. :idunno:

Many know who "they" are and many confuse this. "They" are the ones who attacked us on 9/11. "They" are the ones who have been perpretrating war against us by bombing embassies, killing hostages, and attacking our ships. "They" are Al-Qaeda. "They" are not the phantasmagoria that allows the US to broaden this war.

 

[Cryozombie]

Many know who "they" are and many confuse this. "They" are the ones who attacked us on 9/11. "They" are the ones who have been perpretrating war against us by bombing embassies, killing hostages, and attacking our ships. "They" are Al-Qaeda. "They" are not the phantasmagoria that allows the US to broaden this war.

I'm just curious... who are the "They" who are shooting at, trapping, and bombing our soldiers? Are THEY not the enemy...

 

[Tgace]

Liberals need to address terrorism.

 

[Makalakumu]

Liberals need to address terrorism.

Interesting commentary on that same article...

http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/06/

Posted 06/06/2003

Sir,

You claim to be a liberal. However, your simplistic assertions and sweeping generalizations about liberals are not only wrong, but also very ill-motivated and asinine. You made some excellent points about Islamic fundamentalists and their operations, but your bundling of the issues regarding Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, India, Philippines together shows that you are acting with a deep-rooted hatred against Muslims. Most of your points against liberals were countered by Mr. Steven Graham, so I won't talk further about them:

http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vfeedback/frontend.v?ACTION=display_post&Site_ID=&Post_ID=e14a12feab1d84d9754d2ed33e9eb56a

I would like to make some other observations. You brought up India a number of times. If I am correct, you are an Indian or Indian-American. India is currently being ruled by a Hindu Fundamentalist party - BJP. You mentioned how India is being shattered by Muslim fundamentalists. I vehemently oppose your notion. Muslims are a downtrodden, oppressed, faceless minority in India. Rather, the facist, racist Hindutva nationalists are the root cause of all the hatred. These people even oppress and kill their fellow lower-caste Hindus (not to mention Christians and Muslims). Besides, the non-resident Indians are funding and promoting hatred in once liberal country of Mahatma Gandhi. Gujrat is the only state where state-sponsored ethnic cleansing is happening. The following links will give you some illumination:

http://www.dalitstan.org
http://www.stopfundinghate.org/resources/
http://mondediplo.com/1998/06/09india1
http://www.guidedones.com/issues/regions/India/fascism.htm
http://hrw.org/press/2002/04/gujarat.htm

I don't want to elaborate. I just want to point out the flaws in your article and unmask the real intention of neo-conservative opportunistic people like you. The readers should find out.

vg

 

[KenpoEMT]

Which is why I have been appalled, disgusted, and ashamed at the direction so many liberals have taken in the weeks and months since Sept. 11. Almost immediately, many left-wingers blamed America or Israel for the attacks (some still do). When idiotarian's canards of the CIA or Mossad being responsible were shown transparently absurd and asinine, these same people blamed U.S. policy with respect towards Muslims or Israel as the root cause for the attacks, conveniently forgetting the attacks were hatched while a U.S. president worked harder and engineered a better deal than anyone in history for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that same president had staked American blood and treasure for no material interest to protect Muslims in Kosovo, Bosnia and Somalia, while the so-called "guardians of Islam" behind Sept. 11 did nothing. American attacks on al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts continue to be met with loathing and outrage that the U.S. government would take action to meet its primary responsibility--protecting its citizens. Any U.S. military action now is tarred with accusations of imperialism.

Great link there, Tgace.

 

[Tgace]

Hmm..that just looks like an Ad Hominum attack to me. You are an Indian so your points dont count. Wheres Heretic when ya need him?

 

[Makalakumu]

There are some other good rebuttles to that article in the commentaries. The one linked in the commentary I posted makes some valid points. Here is the link...

http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vfeedback/frontend.v?ACTION=display_post&Site_ID=&Post_ID=e14a12feab1d84d9754d2ed33e9eb56a

 

[KenpoEMT]

I feel the need to address several of the author's points, for his consistent use of generalizations regarding what he apparently believes is a one-size-fits-all generic liberal response to issues related to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are very amateurishly expressed and poorly researched

I hate to say it, but the mainstream media liberals are the people from whom I formed my own impression as to what most liberals think. Also, the liberals who would call into some of my favorite talk shows (Rusty Humphreys, Drudge, Coast to Coast, etc.) left the same impression. I think the article from the Chronicle hit the target dead center.

I don't identify myself as either liberal or conservative; however, I do believe that both ideologies have positive and negative points. Usually on matters of government finance I am conservative and on social issues I am mostly liberal.

I don't understand why the author seems to think that one cannot simultaneously denounce the killing of 3,000-5,000 innocent Afghani citizens while also denouncing the Taliban. These are not mutually exclusive positions for one to take.

This is a valid statement; although, I do think that the author was misrepresented here.

The point of protesting the death of innocents in Afghanistan is to shed light on the sometime inept, indiscriminate, and overly-aggressive nature of the attack methods of the United States military.

This is so naive as to be sickening. War is awful. Having said that, compare the actions of the US military in Iraq and the actions of the US military in Vietnam. Are we carpet bombing villages? No. Are we prosecuting military personel who step over the line? Yes. There is a major difference in our method of conducting warfare. The 'collateral damage' figures are incredibly low compared to previous wars. Nothing in the world says that we have to try to minimize civilian deaths during wartime but we do anyway. We voluntarily comply with the Geneva Convention. We use precision guided weapons instead of wiping out whole cities.

It wasn't so long ago in history when warfare would include the eradication or enslavement of civilian populations.

The fact is that our military handled many aspects of the Afghanistan invasion very very poorly. We were far too trusting of the supposedly anti-Taliban Afghani rebel forces for our own good. It was foolish to think that their agenda mirrored our own. In fact, that misguided and naive trust is the primary reason Osama Bin Laden and the vast majority of the top Al Qaeda members were able to successfully flee Afghanistan for safe harbor in countries such as Pakistan

Such an easy criticism from an armchair general.
So, his analysis is that our "misguided and naive trust is the primary reason OBL" escaped? I need more than random opinion to believe that. OBL escaped because E&E is (was) one of the specialties of his 'organization'. Get the leaders away from retaliation. Let the 'useful idiots' die.
SF and regular infantry scoured the mountains for this guy. Naive trust had nothing to do with OBL's escape.

Bin Laden and his associates are now thought to have casually fled into western Pakistan days after we had air and ground troops heavily infiltrating the area.

I don't think anyone casually flees the 3rd ID and SF.

Namely, the fact that the United States has done a terrible job of staying the course in Afghanistan

Anyone noticing a pattern here? I doubt that this guy is familiar with the positive events ocurring in Afganistan. I remember an interview with an Afgan who was thrilled to be able to open a franchise fast food restaurant. I don't think that the author quite understands the importance of free enterprise.

Now then, the idea that liberals are now somehow siding with Iraq is simply ludicrous beyond belief. For one thing, it is our very own embargo of Iraq that has led to the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis over the past decade or so

Actually, I believe that the suffering and death were caused primarily by the Hussein family. Once again America gets the blame.

Our actions concerning innocent Iraqi citizens have done nothing more than sow hatred toward the United States throughout the Muslim world, creating an endless number of hate-filled martyrs willing to die by taking as many Americans/Israelis/etc

So we should appease them, right?

And his point about Iraq using chemical weapons on its own people can easily be responded to by simply pointing out that we are the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons on innocent civilians (in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima).

Once again, America is at fault. Clearly we have taught the rest of the world the value of weapons of mass destruction and now it is coming back to haunt us, right? We can't judge what the muslims did to our innocent men and women on 9/11 because we moved decisively to end World War II.
The author of the quote clearly thinks that comitting genocide against your own countrymen equates to attacking the population, infrastructure, and morale of a state that is a sworn enemy. Perhaps the author thinks that the Japanese were justified in comitting war crimes against our soldiers: http://vikingphoenix.com/public/JapanIncorporated/1895-1945/jpwcrmz.htm
Not to mention that Japan was already engineering it's own atomic weapons program. If they had suceeded in developing the atomic bomb first, what would that have done to the course of the war? Do you think that LA would still be emitting radiation?

Furthermore, the idea that Hussein 'seeks nuclear weapons to expand a reign of terror' is nothing more than heresay. There is absolutley no hard evidence in existence that Hussein currently has the desire to obtain nuclear weapons

So this is why Congress voted to give Pres. Bush the power to wage war? Are our leaders so stupid as to be duped by hearsay? How many attorneys are serving in Congress?
here's a good link to find out how many dupable attorneys are currently serving: http://www.yourcongress.com/viewarticle.asp?article_id=39#Isnt%20Congress%20full%20of%20attorneys and the quote from this site is below:

There are quite a few attorneys in Congress: 228 by one organization's count. Is 42% of America's population attorneys?

They must have all gone to community college law shools, right? Got their AA degree in pre-law and off to congress they went.

When I heard about what the Sharia laws in Nigeria, I was beyond appalled. In fact, I was livid. I, like all of the other 'liberal' friends and acquaintances with whom I discussed the subject, was incensed that such a thing could be allowed to occur.

Good, I was livid too.

I could go on and on and on picking apart your poorly-written and ill-conceived article, but why bother?

That's funny, I was just thinking the same thing...

 

[Makalakumu]

Hmmm, what was this thread about again?

One thing I would like to remind people is that most liberals have a great desire to finish off the people who attacked our country. The "war on terror" is suppose to go after the terrorists.

However, this thing has morphed into oil politics...which incidentally were a contributing factor that helped make terrorists. This conflict is an extension of something that has been going on for forty years.
Someone should start a thread about "democritizing" the middle east...I think this is where the discussion is going.

 

[Makalakumu]

Regarding UN sactions and the resulting deaths...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm

 

[Makalakumu]

WWMD?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/

 

[Makalakumu]

Depleted Uranium in Iraq.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

Warning...there is one graphic photo of a child born with a birth defect near the end of this article.

Theban_legion

I think some of these articles address the points you made a few posts up.

 

[KenpoEMT]

Yup, not the first time I've read about DU.

We could probably play 'link tag' all night long. You post links that oppose my position; I post links that oppose your position. The ugly fact that I have to accept is that I am no expert on this topic even though I have strong opinions (like you). I think that there aren't any experts on this topic. What we are seeing here is something new to the global scene. We can analyze and speculate...like the world leaders are doing.

How do we proceed? How do we assure a safe future for our children? What is the role of the Federal Government in our personal lives? What is the role of the Federal Government on the global scene? Where do our responsibilities as a nation begin and end? To whom do we answer when we err? Who determines what 'error' means?

It is the answers to these questions that temporarily divide us.

We all have strong opinions on this issue. All of us think that our answers are mostly (or completely) correct.

Two warships were attacked. Some say that it is our own fault. If casualties had been inflicted, would it then be acceptable to say that we should sacrifice the lives of our sailors, reserving no retaliation, as penance for our 'Imperialism'? Should I not value the life of a sailor/Marine/soldier of my own nation more than I value the lives of the often violent citizens of a foreign hostile nation?

 

[Makalakumu]

Two warships were attacked. Some say that it is our own fault. If casualties had been inflicted, would it then be acceptable to say that we should sacrifice the lives of our sailors, reserving no retaliation, as penance for our 'Imperialism'? Should I not value the life of a sailor/Marine/soldier of my own nation more than I value the lives of the often violent citizens of a foreign hostile nation?

When people fight, often the environment leading up to the fight is just as important as the fight itself...especially if one is attempting to understand the fight. The blow by blow, who gets it next, kind of stuff doesn't resolve the conflict. Changing the environment often can. I think that as martial artists, we can all understand that.

 

[Tgace]

Depleted Uranium in Iraq.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

Warning...there is one graphic photo of a child born with a birth defect near the end of this article.

Theban_legion

I think some of these articles address the points you made a few posts up.

from the World Health Organization website:

"Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium

* In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.
* In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.
* Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
* No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
***************************
* No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.
***************************
* Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported."

Here's the URL: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en /

Note that this flash uses the word "tonnes" - this is not standard American usage (Am. English = 'tons'), and likely represents a foreign origin for the animation.

Additional issues arise: How are we to know these children were deformed by depleted uranium, as opposed to chemical weapons, which a) are known to cause birth-defects, b) were definitively used by the Iraqi government prior to, and during the first Gulf War?

 

[Tgace]

Anyway what did DU have to do with our countrymen being attacked and liberals believing that they "asked for it"?