Uranium bombing in Iraq contaminates Europe

I don't like the current administration, but that's just plain bullshit. It stands to reason that if the Bush administration had used uranium-enriched bombs that caused any type of radioactive cloud emission to spread over Europe, the effects would already be seen and felt in Iraq. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of science knows that in any type of release of radioactive particles, the effects will be noticed and felt at the point of greatest concentration, the area of detonation, first and grow less noticeable over a longer period of time the further away the particles travel. If something like this were true, someone would have been screaming to the media long before now.
 
Not to bust the bubble, but in simple ordnance alone there's more than enough depleted uranium to cause cancer just from the exposure to the shells laying around.

They've been recycling nuclear waste in this manner for years in any explosive shell the army's been using. So now they're just getting caught, or the long term effects are just beginning to be seen, whatever.
 
Sarek said:
I don't like the current administration, but that's just plain bullshit. It stands to reason that if the Bush administration had used uranium-enriched bombs that caused any type of radioactive cloud emission to spread over Europe, the effects would already be seen and felt in Iraq.
Click to expand...
They have been seen over Iraq for over 10 years. Birth deformities are very widespread compared to the rest of the Middle East.

Graphic pictures which I won't post here:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

The terratogenic effects of DU are very real.
 
The threat of Depleted Uranium exposure: real, deadly ... and covered up by the Pentagon and United States Veterans Administration


Before a use was found for it, DU was just stored in vast amounts as a byproduct. All that changed when it was discovered that solid "dense metal" DU projectiles (in all forms) greatly increased their ability to penetrate and destroy a target.

...

There's a problem with these weapons, however -- a serious downside never discussed and which great pains are taken to conceal. These weapons in all their forms leave in their wake an irremediable irradiated and chemically toxic landscape far more deadly than the death and destruction to the targets struck.
Click to expand...
 
Excellent.

Saves us from having to "salt the earth" more obviously. We can always hire the ignorant or desperate to extract the oil later...
 
Messenger wrote:

The threat of Depleted Uranium exposure: real, deadly ... and covered up by the Pentagon and United States Veterans Administration

This has been a favorite rallying cry against America since Gulf War I. There was a presumed cover-up by the Coalition powers when we weren't running Iraq, now the big allegation is that we're covering it up again while running Iraq. I would think we'd be able to settle this urban legend one way or the other, with such a greater presence in Iraq. (Unless someone would care to claim that we have censored any reporter operating freely in Iraq.)

I guess this and the 1992 "Highway of Death=genocide" conspiracy stories will run forever. No wonder Bush and Blair discount opposition to our removing Saddam Hussein, there hasn't been any serious criticism over Iraq worth debating. So far all they've been presented with is conspiracy nuttiness.

-Ogami
 
And these birth deformities are proven to be caused by... what? Saddam Hussein's wonderful environmental legacy of destroying southern Iraq's marshes? Gassing entire Kurdish and Iranian illages? What's their birth defect rate like? How about Saddam's deliberate starvation of his own people during UN sanctions (while he and his cronies lived the fat rich life), which included the lack of proper medical care and medical products?

Probably the best way we could improve the health of the average Iraqi is to put an end to the vollies of AK-47 and AK-74 fire during weddings. You know what happens to you if the spend round falls and hits you on the head? Now there's a health risk right there.

-Ogami
 
Ogami said:
And these birth deformities are proven to be caused by... what? Saddam Hussein's wonderful environmental legacy of destroying southern Iraq's marshes?
Click to expand...
Depleted uranium.

From the article:

(And I will supply more if requested)

Both the Pentagon and the British Ministry of Defence officially deny that there is any significant danger from exposure to DU ammunition. And whilst it is conceivable that the US led attacks on Iraq's nuclear power stations could be a contributory factor, most reseachers point to DU as the most likely source of both deformities and cancers. The rising number of cases in Iraq, particularly in the South where the greatest concentration of DU was fired, is simply staggering. Iraqi physicians have never encountered anything like it, and have made the perfectly reasonable point that similar increases in cancer and deformities were experienced in Japan after the two US atomic bomb attacks. Cancer has increased between 7 and 10 fold; deformities between 4 and 6 fold.
Click to expand...


Gassing entire Kurdish and Iranian illages?
Click to expand...
Actually, CIA analysts have come to the conclusion that it was Iran who carried out the gassings, not Iraq (Just don't expect to hear this on Fox, of course.)

What's their birth defect rate like? How about Saddam's deliberate starvation of his own people during UN sanctions (while he and his cronies lived the fat rich life), which included the lack of proper medical care and medical products?
Click to expand...
The lack of medical care lies almost squarely on the shoulders of the UN. Around 500,000 children died not because Saddam was hoarding chlorine, which could have disinfected the water, or penicillin, which could have saved the lives of many people.

http://www.newint.org/easier-english/Iraq/iraqsan.html
^A somewhat older article, though more relevation to the discussion.

Unless you mean to tell me that Saddam and his cronies ate the entire food supply of Iraq.

Probably the best way we could improve the health of the average Iraqi is to put an end to the vollies of AK-47 and AK-74 fire during weddings. You know what happens to you if the spend round falls and hits you on the head? Now there's a health risk right there.
Click to expand...
For sure, but there have been numerous cases of American soldiers committing war crimes in Iraq, and a total disregard for civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

http://www.albasrah.net/warcrimes.htm
^From the first item:

Two weeks ago the UK Independent ran an article which confirmed that the US had “lied to Britain over the use of napalm in Iraqâ€. (6-17-05) Since then, not one American newspaper or TV station has picked up the story even though the Pentagon has verified the claims.
Click to expand...


Since the U.S. knowingly bombed houses in a village and killed at least 16 and wounded another 15 Afghan civilians in this latest attack, and since the military says it has only confirmed killing 20 Taliban fighters, it's understandable that the Pentagon would be trying to claim another 60 Taliban deaths. A ratio of 16 civilians for 20 enemy fighters is hardly "proportionality." It is more properly called a civilian massacre.
Click to expand...

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff05252006.html

I don't think bullets shot into the air at weddings come close to the number of lives lost due to overzealous military action.
 
We'll have to disagree on who gassed what villages, and war crimes. Although I noted the awesome relief the entire left expressed upon learning the news at Abu Ghraib. Finally, they could go back to hating the U.S. military, as usual. All that flag-waving after 9/11 must have been a terrible burden to them. Now it's back to business as usual, and assuming any war crimes allegations must be true.

(Except, apparently, against the former Iraqi regime.)

-Ogami
 
Ogami said:
Although I noted the awesome relief the entire left expressed upon learning the news at Abu Ghraib.
Click to expand...
Yes, I remember that. What joy I had. Woot! Ah, the memories.
 
LOL

I see there is new cause for rejoicing on the left, they have that Time story accusing our soldiers of massacring 24 civilians:

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1174682,00.html

As usual for America-hating journalists, Time magazine assumes American soldiers massacred people. Yet how many times have our own soldiers reported insurgents firing from behind women and children?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/26/D8HRJUD01.html

I'll believe our own soldiers any day over the military-haters at Time.

-Ogami
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top