Depleted Uranium
This morning on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now she interviewed the scientist who is overseeing the testing operations in Afghanistan to determine if depleted uranium (du) ammunition casings were used, yet again, by our armed forces. Their findings document a shocking amount (varying from 100 to 400 times the safe exposure count) of uranium presence in the urine of Afghani civilians who survived the carpet bombings our armed forces dumped upon their land.
The U.S. armed forces have not confessed to using du ammunitions in Afghanistan, but, true to pattern, they denied using it in the 1991 Gulf War, then admitted later, but only with the accompanying statement that there is "little or no risk from these 'low level' radiation exposures because it is not absorbed through skin or clothing."
Well, it's true they did not lie, it cannot harm you through skin exposure, however, the way it can produce deadly results is by inhalation, the particles invade the lungs, blood, bone marrow, and multiply at a frightening rate, producing often fatal illnesses and passing along devastating birth defects to the next generation. They refused to comment on its use in Kosovo, only to admit it later.
So, while offering "no comment" about its use in Afghanistan, what can we discern from this pattern, and now this hard scientific data? Not to mention all the evidence provided by our own veterans of the Gulf War, for which they must fight to get the Veterans' Administration to pay for and "administer" treatment for their complications directly related to their exposure to these lethal bits of metal.
Why are we still using this stuff?
Why don't we admit to it?
Some pictures here:
<a href="http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/birthdeformities1.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/birthdeformities1.htm</a>;
The U.S. armed forces have not confessed to using du ammunitions in Afghanistan, but, true to pattern, they denied using it in the 1991 Gulf War, then admitted later, but only with the accompanying statement that there is "little or no risk from these 'low level' radiation exposures because it is not absorbed through skin or clothing."
Well, it's true they did not lie, it cannot harm you through skin exposure, however, the way it can produce deadly results is by inhalation, the particles invade the lungs, blood, bone marrow, and multiply at a frightening rate, producing often fatal illnesses and passing along devastating birth defects to the next generation. They refused to comment on its use in Kosovo, only to admit it later.
So, while offering "no comment" about its use in Afghanistan, what can we discern from this pattern, and now this hard scientific data? Not to mention all the evidence provided by our own veterans of the Gulf War, for which they must fight to get the Veterans' Administration to pay for and "administer" treatment for their complications directly related to their exposure to these lethal bits of metal.
Why are we still using this stuff?
Why don't we admit to it?
Some pictures here:
<a href="http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/birthdeformities1.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/birthdeformities1.htm</a>;
Comments
Oh my God, that your link?! Proof, indeed. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<a href="http://www.af.mil/photos/images/fighters_a10_0008.jpg"; target="_blank">tank-killer comin' atcha!</a>
The fact that I knew that at age 7 is a pretty clear indicator of how the U.S. isn't exactly actively covering the fact up.
The US Army are the biggest joke, the most hypocritical ilk I think I have ever come across.
Well, at least Weapons of Lingering Destruction... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: Artman @_@ ]</p>
<strong>Hmmmm. So the good 'ol US of A doesn't use WOMD... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Well, at least Weapons of Lingering Destruction... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: Artman @_@ ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!! Why the **** does George W think that he can get away with his damm War againts WOMD??????? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
<strong>
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!! Why the **** does George W think that he can get away with his damm War againts WOMD??????? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you have participated in the other State of the Union thread where scott blasted me about myself wondering why having all our military might surrounding Iraq couldn't be described as itself as WOMD...well, couldn't sway the asshat...
<a href="http://abc.net.au/news/justin/weekly/newsnat-28jan2003-93.htm"; target="_blank">Good article here...</a>
I'm saddened that our government has weapons that can be just as destructive in the long-term as a bio-weapon may have in the short term...
<strong>Dear God, Those pictures are truely saddning indeed. I cant explain the sick and sad feeling I have for those innocent children.
The US Army are the biggest joke, the most hypocritical ilk I think I have ever come across.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i think it's sad anytime civilians get killed due to military action. but no one can deny that the US goes to very extreme measures to insure that those casualties are kept as low as possible. that's not to say they don't fvck up from time to time. my only problem with our military is i wish they would be more honest and forthcoming when they do mess up. not sure what your referring to when you say they are hypocritical though.
<strong>
i think it's sad anytime civilians get killed due to military action. but no one can deny that the US goes to very extreme measures to insure that those casualties are kept as low as possible. that's not to say they don't fvck up from time to time. my only problem with our military is i wish they would be more honest and forthcoming when they do mess up. not sure what your referring to when you say they are hypocritical though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, that seems fair to say.
I must admit I was perhaps a little harsh in my post but I dont really like some of the military ilks attitude.
A few points to address:
- The U.S., as far as I can tell, has never denied using depleted Uranium weapons in both the Gulf War and the attacks on Afghanistan. So on that point the article is way off-base, <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/6-142.asp"; target="_blank">saying</a> "we're flying A-10s in Afghanistan" is hardly denying it.
- The United States military still uses weapons that "poison" the battlefield.
- The United States has done more than any other nation for making the modern battlefield safer for soldiers and especially civilians. But deformed baby pictures are far more compelling than this simply (and true) statements.
Also, SJO, your source is one of the most blatant propaganda sites I have ever seen, and definitely the most ludicrous ones I have ever seen used as backup to make an argument. Check your sources, this one is beyond ridiculous.
<strong>
Yes, that seems fair to say.
I must admit I was perhaps a little harsh in my post but I dont really like some of the military ilks attitude.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i can understand that. i grew up around a lot of that gung-ho "let's blow'm up and let god sort'm out" attitude that you may be referring. thankfully, that kind of thinking will only get you so far in the US military these days.
- The United States military still uses weapons that "poison" the battlefield.
- The United States has done more than any other nation for making the modern battlefield safer for soldiers and especially civilians. But deformed baby pictures are far more compelling than this simply (and true) statements.
<hr></blockquote>
i would have to ask why??? you keep saying battlefield as if it is some remote sterile area we are poisoning....it is where many people live...the next war may be fought inside baghdad or seoul...it this was being fought in the battlefields of austin i think many would hope and pray that "depleted Uranium" would not be used.....is depleted uranium a weapon of mass destruction?? if depleted uranium was put into skud missiles and fired by iraq at other countries would we claim they used WOMD?? g
<strong>you keep saying battlefield as if it is some remote sterile area we are poisoning....it is where many people live...the next war may be fought inside baghdad or seoul</strong><hr></blockquote>
A battlefield can be a remote field or someone's house, but it's still a battlefield. Also, <a href="http://members.home.nl/hvangerven/lyrics/lovebatt.htm"; target="_blank">love is a battlefield</a>.
I'm well aware that civilians die during war, this is not new. Fewer civilians die in war nowadays. It's still ugly, but far less ugly (Baby Milk Factory and deformed baby pictures notwithstanding).
[quote]<strong>it this was being fought in the battlefields of austin i think many would hope and pray that "depleted Uranium" would not be used</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, yeah. I would hope first off that no war would take place in Austin. We are nice, pot-smoking hippies who ain't never hurt nobody.
Cancer-causing agents are bad.
[quote]<strong>is depleted uranium a weapon of mass destruction??</strong><hr></blockquote>
By definition, no, I don't see why people feel the need to latch onto buzzwords to categorize everything for maximum shock value at whatever moment they find themselves in.
[quote]<strong>if depleted uranium was put into skud missiles and fired by iraq at other countries would we claim they used WOMD??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe.
If I built a satellite twice the size of the earth, filled it with milk and then dumped it onto the earth would milk be a weapon of mass destruction?
What's the point of using that terminology? Why not just deal with what's there?
Groverat I agree...it *is* propaganda. Re. matters of war everyone uses propaganda. The Iraq section of Bush's State of the Union Address was pure, undiluted propaganda, invoking emotional blackmail right down to his softer vocal expression employed for the more blatant pieces. It was as "cringe worthy" as the 1991 Gulf War incident where Saddam Hussein was repeatedly shown doing his 'Uncle Saddam" bit with a cute 10 year old boy. Yuch! Sometimes, specially using an emotional hook, (such as deformed babies), it is the only way of getting a message out. And...the regular media refuse to touch this stuff.
Also, before Scott etc. chimes in with his "blame America" mantra, many US military personnel were poisoned by inhalation of d.u. on the battlefield during the Gulf War, and the Army withheld warnings about not to interfere with contaminated Iraqi tanks etc. Some medical researchers believe that many Gulf War Syndrome symptoms are related to radiation poisoning.
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>What's the point of using that terminology? </strong><hr></blockquote>
The terminology is used quite frequently when talking about the weapons Iraq can't have. However, try to classify anything that the US might use against Iraq in a similar manner and all of a sudden you are an anti-US bigot hitler demon antichrist.
<strong>And...the regular media refuse to touch this stuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do they? Are you sure?
-Search "depleted uranium" at CNN.com: 87 hits.
( Hell, we even have the EU <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/09/uranium.health/index.html"; target="_blank">stating</a> that it's safe! )
- Search "depleted uranium" at BBC.co.uk: 132 hits.
- FOXNews only has 8, but they are very busy with Ben Affleck gossip.
Hardly an issue that is taboo to the regular media and certainly one capable of being discussed without resorting to such one-sided and lie-filled propaganda.
Honestly, SJO, where do you find this shit? Do you not pass the smelly guy on the street handing out leaflets quickly enough to avoid his full attention?
DEFORMED BABIES! DEFORMED BABIES!
I feel like I'm at a 3 Minutes Hate.
BR:
[quote]The terminology is used quite frequently when talking about the weapons Iraq can't have. However, try to classify anything that the US might use against Iraq in a similar manner and all of a sudden you are an anti-US bigot hitler demon antichrist.<hr></blockquote>
You are? Sez who?
The U.S. has used the biggest and bestest of all WOMD. We nuked the Japanese in DubyaDubyaTwo. I find the fixation with the word to be interesting, both from the administration and those who fancy themselves detractors.
I always take interest when rival groups fight stupid with stupid.
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
it is just that our government keeps talking about WOMD WOMD...i would like to know what is included...what is ok to use, what is ok to build, create etc....it is the governments buzz word more than mine....g
ps. i hope they don't bomb austin either...i like pot smoking hippies....bush may think otherwise and throw a few bombs your way for the war on drugs, but not me....we even had a cat named love when i was a kid....