Two US warships attacked

[Makalakumu]

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

It's off topic, there was a point made about civilian casualties and DU popped to mind. It probably deserves its own topic, but...

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?

70% of DU oxidizes on impact and drifts away from the battle field. UO2 is radioactive dust. This is a contributing factor that has been implicated in studies of increased amounts birth defects and cancers.

Saddam's use of chemical weapons wasn't widespread. There are little more then a half dozen reported instances and most of those were used against Iranian troops. When Saddam's stockpiles were bombed, a low level amount of chemical agent was spread far and wide.

Both of these things would have negative health effects on iraqi civilians.

 

[Rich Parsons]

70% of DU oxidizes on impact and drifts away from the battle field. UO2 is radioactive dust. This is a contributing factor that has been implicated in studies of increased amounts birth defects and cancers.

Could you provide a link or links for my education on this. Thank you.

Saddam's use of chemical weapons wasn't widespread. There are little more then a half dozen reported instances and most of those were used against Iranian troops. When Saddam's stockpiles were bombed, a low level amount of chemical agent was spread far and wide.

Birth defects also occur for other reasons, check out those in Mexico, where the hygene took a drop when industrialization hit certain areas.

As to chemical weapons, what is the study on the environment and biological influences. I am serious here, as I think this interaction into the environment and system would be as much or more so an influence, on the birth defect rate.

Both of these things would have negative health effects on iraqi civilians.

Yes, and in Japan the birth defects and radioactive levels in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (* Horrible from a humanitarian effect *) did not decrease at the normal rate of decay of the last 50+ years. Unfortunately I saw this on TV, and not sure which show, so I agree that this is here say at this point. It was found that there were some who knew the area would be "hot", so other "hot" by products were put there.

I agree that radioactivity can cause problems in large doses and over time for a total cummilation, yet, I have not read the studies that shows the DU to be the cause. Hence my request above for the links so I can read and learn.

Also, are there studies about US military persons who lived and or worked in those tanks for the year to 2 years plus while in Iraq, or eslewhere? ust curious.

 

[Makalakumu]

Rich

Before we get to far into this, could you split this off into a new topic? This is a pretty good topic and I think it would get more traffic...FWIW.

John

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich

Before we get to far into this, could you split this off into a new topic? This is a pretty good topic and I think it would get more traffic...FWIW.

John

New thread Here

So this thread can go back to topic.


Rich Parsons
Martial Talk
Assistant Admin

 

[sgtmac_46]

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.

Or at least they profess a desire to do so, because to actually say out loud they have no real desire to do so, is political suicide. Got to maintain their political viability. It's called talking out both sides of their mouths.

Take your comment for example: It gives token lip-service to actually going after terrorists....then, it gives the typical backhand leftist attack claiming that ALL of this is REALLY about oil, not the terrorist, the hidden message being that islamic terrorists aren't the real enemy, it's Republicans, big business and US imperialism. It's not really that clever either.

Regarding UN sactions and the resulting deaths...

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

Oh yeah, the sanctions. It certainly was flawed....might have had something to do with the UN and it's corrupt cronies taking bribes from Saddam to allow weapons through, instead of food. In addition, there seem to be enough money coming in for Saddam to buy several palaces. I wonder if the alleged mass starvation in Iraq was nothing more than a strategic move on the part of Saddam to foster sympathy on the international stage. A large amount of evidence exists to show that Saddam received plenty of aid, he just didn't distribute it.

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.

Couldn't be a case of a dictator using a bunch of leftists for political gain, could it? That's never happened before. Lenin's "Useful idiots" indeed.

 

[KenpoEMT]

Or at least they profess a desire to do so, because to actually say out loud they have no real desire to do so, is political suicide. Got to maintain their political viability. It's called talking out both sides of their mouths.

hehehe.

 

[Makalakumu]

Or at least they profess a desire to do so, because to actually say out loud they have no real desire to do so, is political suicide. Got to maintain their political viability. It's called talking out both sides of their mouths.

It is entirely possible to fight Al-qaeda and not follow through with the PNAC's vision. That you think it is impossible and PNAC is the only way, that pins you as an ideologue. Lenin's idiots indeed!

Take your comment for example: It gives token lip-service to actually going after terrorists....then, it gives the typical backhand leftist attack claiming that ALL of this is REALLY about oil, not the terrorist, the hidden message being that islamic terrorists aren't the real enemy, it's Republicans, big business and US imperialism. It's not really that clever either.

I think that if I were able to sit down and chat with people in the administration and that if I asked them, about oil politics, the first thing they would say is that terrorism is the number one factor driving their policy. But, if I pressed...there is no way that they could deny that oil isn't part of the equation. Think about it. Our country is totally dependent on the stuff. We need it to survive.

The PNAC plan of a secure middle east with secure and stable regimes is absolutely designed with oil politics in mind. If you don't think so, go and read for yourself and hear it from their mouths. VP Cheney was making speaches to the effect in the late 90s.

You can't be foolish enough to deny that it isn't a factor. We can debate about how large a factor if you wish...

 

[KenpoEMT]

...there is no way that they could deny that oil isn't part of the equation. Think about it. Our country is totally dependent on the stuff. We need it to survive.

The PNAC plan of a secure middle east with secure and stable regimes is absolutely designed with oil politics in mind. If you don't think so, go and read for yourself and hear it from their mouths. VP Cheney was making speaches to the effect in the late 90s.

You can't be foolish enough to deny that it isn't a factor. We can debate about how large a factor if you wish...

Absolutely, oil is a factor, but it is not the primary factor. We aren't the only nation in the world that is completely dependent on the stuff. The only way to fix that problem is to change the technology base of this society. Does it bug me that Pres. Bush has ties to oil? Yeah, a little bit. His idea of alternative energy research is actually nothing more than finding 'cleaner' ways of using fossil fuels. I remember that from one of his speaches...I didn't like it.

Wars for resources are as much a part of human history as anything else. If we can eliminate a REAL threat to American lives while at the same time provide some much needed stability to the violent 'oil empires' in the middle-east [so we can get our 'petroleum fix' in a dependable fashion] then let's do it.

It is as much an act of political suicide for any conservative to vocalize support for using our military to secure oil as it is for any liberal to vocalize opposition to our use of the military in efforts to eliminate terrorism.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It is entirely possible to fight Al-qaeda and not follow through with the PNAC's vision. That you think it is impossible and PNAC is the only way, that pins you as an ideologue. Lenin's idiots indeed!

It may be possible to fight Al-qaeda not using PNAC's vision, but it's impossible to fight Al-qaeda while simultaneously trying to give aid and comfort to it's operatives, and assisting it's agenda.

I think that if I were able to sit down and chat with people in the administration and that if I asked them, about oil politics, the first thing they would say is that terrorism is the number one factor driving their policy. But, if I pressed...there is no way that they could deny that oil isn't part of the equation. Think about it. Our country is totally dependent on the stuff. We need it to survive.

Considering oil funds terrorism and middle eastern dictatorships, it's an issue that's really moot. Of course it's about oil...oil to pay terrorists, oil to keep dictators in power. The difference is, we aren't just going to passively sit by anymore (like some nations) and hand over the money to be paid toward terrorists. We have at least grown the stones to make a token effort to tell islamic dictatorships that they will NOT take the money the west pays for oil, and turn around and spend on terrorists to attack us (whether we have the stones to follow through with that or not.)

Of course it isn't JUST oil, as evidenced by the fact that we are dealing with Islamic extremists, we are not fighting a war with Canada and Mexico, or Argentina (our largest suppliers of oil). The issue is Islamic extremists with the huge budget that oil provides.

The PNAC plan of a secure middle east with secure and stable regimes is absolutely designed with oil politics in mind. If you don't think so, go and read for yourself and hear it from their mouths. VP Cheney was making speaches to the effect in the late 90s.

Delusional fantasies about vast neo-conservative conspiracies aside, I really don't care. Secure and stable regimes are necessary on a multitude of levels, world commerce being only one. I really don't care what the core motives are of a group of men, if those ultimate motives will create more good for more people.

You can't be foolish enough to deny that it isn't a factor. We can debate about how large a factor if you wish...

And you can't be naive enough to be only concerned with the purity of peoples motives. I'm only concerned with means and ends, not with someone's internal motives. Much good has been done through impure motives, and much evil has been brought by the best intentions.