US War Crimes and Depleted Uranium

scc,
They call it depleted Uranium because it is the leftover material after the ore dug from the ground has been processed and nearly all of the radioactive material has been extracted, opposite of enriched Uranium.
 
So Bush comitted War crimes?

What about Saddam? Heck, he's so spotless to most anti-war people they wouldn't have a problem letting him be president of the United States.
 
Here is a list of elements commonly found in the human body.

1 Oxygen (65%)
2 Carbon (18%)
3 Hydrogen (10%)
4 Nitrogen (3%)
5 Calcium (1.5%)
6 Phosphorus (1.0%)
7 Potassium (0.35%)
8 Sulfur (0.25%)
9 Sodium (0.15%)
10 Magnesium (0.05%)
11Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
12 Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)

Notice that there are quite a few toxic chemicals. Elements like Selenium, while very toxic in large amounts, are required for a human to live. Others, while not necessary for live, are commonly found in trace ammounts with no ill effects. In fact it is perfectly normal to find trace amounts of Lead, Mercury, Thallium, Arsenic, and even Uranium in the human body. It is only when our body absorbs too much, Lead, Mercury, Arsenic, or in the wrong form, Chromium-6 (bad :( ) Chromium-3 (good :) ), that we become ill.

Uranium is not the killer of all living things. It is a natural element that has been here for billions of years. In terms of harming the body, DU is as dangerous as lead. As long as you don't eat it or inhale lots of it, you're fine. There is radioactive Americium in the smoke detector above my door and I don't seem be melting to the floor. There are no toxic substances, only toxic amounts
 
I am sorry but when I hear a post that starts "US war crimes"

I am saddened by this thread.
I refuse to read any of it since it starts with the wording US war crimes.
I am very dissipointed at the statement.
 
Last edited:
Ozzie-
In fairness, I created the title when I cut the first few posts of this thread out of a completely unrelated thread. scc, though he's written what is posted under his name, did not create the thread title.

scc-
You may NOT do drive by's here:
Make your point.
Prepare to state your sources, if argument of fact.
Defend your arguments.

Or be gone.

Posting Googled sites that meet your keyword search, absent independent commentary and/or thought, are simply not TFL.

Understood?

More Signal; Less Noise....if you please.
Rich
 
I choose gone. btw, ozzie, it's california, not calaforina, and I do live here. have a nice evening.
 
"I choose gone."

Typical.

There's still huge controversy in the medical and scientific communities on whether depleted uranium is the cause of Gulf War syndrom.

For as many "DU is the most evil substance on earth" links that anyone cares to post, as many more with scientific backing for the relative inert nature of DU.

I for one know better than a dozen veterans of Gulf War I, infantry and armor, who either participated in operations where a lot of DU was spraying around or who were in DU contaminated areas soon after the cessation of a battle, and not a one suffers from Gulf War syndrom.

Scientific? No.

But certainly not what some of these sites would have you believe, that every vet is a medical nightmare because of DU.
 
Liberal movement...

I think this whole war crime garbage is just anger from liberals that W earned the first election. That's all this is. Politics. People say "We don't need to police the world", but who will. Being the world superpower, I think its a responsibility within us.

I hear people say "We have starving people here at home, why aren't we feeding them". America is the land of opportunity for everyone no? Then the bum on 51st can get a job if he WANTED it badly enough, what about the little kid in Iraq whose house was destroyed by us because his fearless Saddam didn't care about his safety enough to allow inspections? Where is the opportunity for him?

Also, the 'I want more security, smarter airport personnel, better technology... but I want to pay less for it' mentally pisses me off. That is what outsources jobs to India. There are too many whiners complaining about the deficit, and coincidence...they want more security... interesting.

I voted for George W. Bush because I like my guns, I want to keep my guns... because as much of a better country Canada or England is (gag me) the headache to own the weapons I have now is mammoth. I also voted for him, because I like boots instead of flip-flops (if you don't get that... too bad).

Stop whining about deficits, war crimes, and the 'facts' that are on the news, go about your lives. If you are unsatisfied with life in this country, a)move, b) run for office. Unfortunately, I'd vote for W or Reagan any day over anyone named Kennedy. Liberals are encroaching my rights (ironic how totalitarians are called liberals).

And if you are worried about DU affecting soldiers, please shut your mouth and stop demoralizing my comrades in arms. Whether it is harmful or not, I'm here to do my job, not maintain my health. I'll sacrifice my health to DU to prevent another 9/11 any day.

-Semper Fi
 
well, start with the du link I posted, if I got some facts wrong, ok, i can accept that. that link is very well-researched, go through it and see.
Click to expand...

I'm truly sorry, but that is exactly the kind of statement that gives me the giggles. It's for that exact same reason that I couldn't resist picking up a copy of The Disarmer's Handbook (Penguin Books, 318pp, copyright 1983.) On the back cover it makes the bold claim that it provides "everyone engaged in fighting the arms race with a compendium of facts with which to be as expertly informed as any professional..."

Now, my military history and military science libraries run to several thousand volumes filled with facts, opinions, and raw data, but someone can read this slender tome and be as "expertly informed" as someone who's actually done the research? Color me skeptical. :o

(FWIW, more than one well-informed source I've chatted with credits extended exposure to trace amounts of those nerve agents Saddam didn't have as being a partial source of GWS. :eek: )
 
here is a good link with the various theories of what causes Gulf War Syndrom:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/syndrome/analysis/
the data is at best, inconclusive.

one thing that scc pointed out in his argument was the large number of iraqi civilians that have died as a direct result of the american invasion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html
the 100,000 figure was of course reached by interpolation, so it may or may not be accurate.

either way, i believe that the politicians and high level brass, in general do not have the welfare of each individual soldier in mind, let alone civilians. collateral damage and casualties are a harsh reality of war. when it comes to war, peoples lives are treated like a commodity, with only an end goal in mind. "You have to break eggs to make an omelet."

one thing is for certain, we can't count on the the mainstream media for any straight answers. everyone (including pres bush) has an agenda.
 
You know I often wonder about some of the stir regarding toxic elements. They are all naturally occuring in nature, sometimes in low concentrations, sometimes in high. We just move them around.

Re war crimes. I hear the sounds of an axe grinding.
 
"either way, i believe that the politicians and high level brass, in general do not have the welfare of each individual soldier in mind, let alone civilians"

Redhawk-are you saying, whether or not the Washington Times facts are correct or not, you still believe the top military leadership cares nothing about their men and women?

I'd sure like to see some current, documented examples of this behavior. I am well aware of some serious issues in the past. In my war, it was agent orange-and the military was informed by the inventors repeatedly that it was toxic only to plants. Elmo Zumwalt sprayed enough of that stuff to float a battleship in RVN, and his son who served in the brown water navy died from lukemia as a result. Do you really believe he cared nothing about his child?

My oldest boy is there right now as a combat medic with the 3rd Infantry Division. They actually have a JAG officer come in and explain the rules of engagement to the field soldiers before they put one toe in the stink. Name me another military who does the same thing.

Can't say much for the politicians-most were too good to serve, and you might find the occasional general/admiral who is a bit too bloodthirsty for the general population, but for the most part, they all started out as "nobody" junior officers, and they know what its like. I don't believe your statement is defensible in this regard.
 
natural uranuim is about .05%, IIRC. You need somewhere around 5% to make fission practical, close to 100% for weapons. When you consider the amount processed to make bombs and fuel rods, you get tons and tons of depleted uranium. It's only real use is it's capabilities for peircing armor, and it's high density. They make ballast weights out of the stuff. Tungsten was the older material, used when armor became too thick for steel. A steel round made hard enough to penetrate would shatter at the velocities you need. Uranium works better than tungsten, and due to the source, is much cheaper.

I find it interesting that five people after my post mentioned the toxicity being the problem, rather than the radioactivity. Was it that hard to understand me?
 
"I find it interesting that five people after my post mentioned the toxicity being the problem, rather than the radioactivity."

And that's a problem... why?

"Was it that hard to understand me?"

It's not uncommon for people to post in reply to a message that the've just read instead of reading through the ENTIRE thread, and then posting, only to come across a post a few down that essentially mirrors what they've just said.

Don't look at it as an affront, look at it as validation.
 
DAVID NANCARROW,
i have no personal experience in the area so i can only go with what i read and what other people tell me. in that regard, i have read all of these:
http://www.defense-training.com/quips/quips.html
among these are correspondance from soldiers in iraq. one theme that develops is that the soldiers are not trusted with loaded weapons in certain areas. one even describes an incident where a soldier was attacked by a knife wielding iraqi in the 'Green Zone' and was unable to defend himself because he was not allowed to be armed. Things like this lead me to believe that someone somewhere does not care. History is full of leaders, some lead from the front, some lead from the rear. It is hard for me to think that those rear leaders have so much concern for those dying in front of them.

of course these are third party examples relative to me. i realize that it must be viewed on a personal level for better understanding, which is where your experience lies. please help me read into this another way, if you see such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top