Don't Need WMD's...

[Seismic Anamoly]

THIS IS ENOUGH JUSTIFICATION FOR MANY...ESPECIALLY IRAQIS

Quote:

---

"One former prisoner he talked to, Anwar Abdul Razak, remembers when a surgeon kissed him on each cheek, said he was sorry and cut his ears off. Razak, then 21 years old, had been swept up during one of Saddam Hussein’s periodic crackdowns on deserters from the Army. Razak says he was innocently on leave at the time, but no matter; he had been seized by some Baath Party members who earned bounties for catching Army deserters. At Basra Hospital, Razak’s ears were sliced off without painkillers. He said he was thrown into jail with 750 men, all with bloody stumps where their ears had been. “They called us Abu [Arabic for father] Earless,” recalls Razak, whose fiancee left him because of his disfigurement."

---

Edited by: Seismic Anamoly at: 4/22/03 12:16:59 am

[MIKE BURN]

You are nothing but a propaganda victim.



I spare you to discuss ATROCITIES in U.S. jails now....

[Seismic Anamoly]

Quote:

---

You are nothing but a propaganda victim.

---

Hmmmm...may be, may be. However....



YOU are just plain NOTHING.

[NRKofOver]

Seismic, I don't think WMD was necessary for an invasion either. I believe what pisses off those of us who question the actions of our government is that any and all justifications were used whenever support needed to be drummed up.



Were we there because Saddam was evil? We were there because he had WMD? Were we there because he defied the UN? Were we there for all these reasons?



And it's important to ask because what if we continue our 'Crusade' and invade another country? Will it be because of WMD or evil leaders or something new? And shouldn't Americans be completely informed as to the reasons military force is used and American's lives are put in jeopardy? Shouldn't there be a somewhat comprehensive reasoning set forth for the use of military force?



I know for me, it seemed like Bush wanted Saddam and would have said anything to get it done. The reasons were afterthoughts.

Read all about ME!

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

Were we there because he defied the UN?

---

That one is quite funny, NRK

[Seismic Anamoly]

Quote:

---

I know for me, it seemed like Bush wanted Saddam and would have said anything to get it done. The reasons were afterthoughts.

---

I agree. Imagine that?!

[NRKofOver]

Ultimately we agree on something else, I'm glad Saddam is no longer running a country, :), although I'm still not sure we approached it the best way possible. But the results are nice, haha!

Read all about ME!

[Seismic Anamoly]

Hopefully, all will be well that ends well....Hopefully.

[Phil Frazier]

What ends? Also, ends well for whom?

[debbie mannas]

Its a great ending alright.



seattletimes.nwsource.com...ner21.html



Guest columnist

Depleted-uranium weapons should be banned



By Glen Milner

Special to The Times



Depleted-uranium (DU) weapons are creating a radioactive nightmare for our troops and the civilians and combatants in the countries where they are used around the world.

Yet, as citizens raise their concerns over the magnitude of the problems related to DU weapons, which are more evident every year, the U.S. military maintains that no threat exists. How can this be?



Depleted-uranium weapons show the insanity of the short-term goal of winning the battle by quickly knocking out the enemy with overwhelming force, and the long-term effects from exposing an entire army, innocent civilians and enemy combatants to radioactive material that may cause far more suffering and death than from the initial battle.



DU weapons are prized by the U.S. military for their superior armor-piercing ability. In 1991, 320 tons of DU were used in Iraq. The Pentagon says the U.S. fired around 10,800 DU rounds, close to three tons, in Bosnia in 1994 and 1995. According to NATO, more than 31,000 rounds, about 10 tons, were fired in Kosovo in 1999.



The recent use of depleted-uranium weapons by U.S. military forces in Iraq has been extensive, with some civilian estimates as high as 2,000 tons of DU being fired. Last Monday, the Pentagon announced there are no plans to clean up the radioactive material.



The problems with depleted-uranium weapons are many.



Depleted uranium, U-238, is a waste product of the process to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power plants and weapons production. DU is 1.7 times as dense as lead and has a half-life of 4.5 billion years.



When a depleted-uranium projectile impacts a solid surface, the pyrophoric properties of this heavy metal ignite, producing intense heat, resulting in an aerosolized radioactive release as the projectile quickly burns through the armor. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body, and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain.



In a 1995 study, the Army Environmental Policy Institute concluded, "If depleted uranium enters the body, it has a potential to generate significant medical consequences. The risks associated with depleted uranium are both chemical and radiological."



In 2000, the U.S. Department of Energy admitted that depleted uranium used in Kosovo was contaminated with "transuramic" (heavier than uranium) fission wastes from inside nuclear reactors. Munitions used were spiked with plutonium, neptunium and americium.



The health consequences are fearsome: Americium, with a half-life of 7,300 years, decays to plutonium-239, which is 200,000 times more radioactive than U-238, the material the Department of Defense has claimed to be "depleted uranium."



In January, the U.S. Navy admitted firing depleted-uranium rounds in prime fishing areas off the coast of Washington state. The Navy stated that the Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS), on almost every surface ship in the U.S. Navy, has to be fired four times each year for calibration.



The Navy informed Seattle media that "all crew members are medically monitored" to assure their safety regarding depleted uranium. A Feb. 25 Freedom of Information Act response from Naval Station Everett, however, stated that no records exist for the testing of Navy personnel who handle DU munitions.



Letters from the Department of the Navy in February to U.S. Reps. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, and Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, show the Navy's latest position on depleted uranium. Responding to the congressmen's concerns of DU weapons fired in Washington state coastal waters, Rear Admiral R. D. Reilly, Jr., director of the environmental readiness division, stated, "... there is no detectable increase of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested uranium."



After the Gulf War in the fall of 1991, the U.S. had a total casualty count of 727 — 269 dead and 458 wounded or ill. The casualty rate now for Gulf War veterans is approximately 30 percent. Of those stationed in the theater, including after the conflict, 221,000 have been awarded disability, according to a Veterans Affairs (VA) report issued Sept. 10, 2002. Many of the U.S. casualties are a direct result of exposure to uranium munitions, according to Canadian and U.S. researchers.



Depleted-uranium weapons will be banned from use. It is the only logical decision to make, given the extreme toxicity of the materials involved, the hazards in deployment and the environmental damage caused from their use.



The end of depleted-uranium weapons will come when we realize there will never be enough VA hospitals for all our ill soldiers and that the lands and civilians we have contaminated will be harmed forever. At that time, U.S. leaders can only hope they will not be held accountable for our crimes against humanity.

[Seismic Anamoly]

Why, for YOU guys...who else? And ain't it a great ending, though?

Edited by: Seismic Anamoly at: 4/22/03 2:38:51 pm

[DreamTone7]

Yet again, more half-truths Debbie. For example:



Quote: In a 1995 study, the Army Environmental Policy Institute concluded, "If depleted uranium enters the body, it has a potential to generate significant medical consequences. The risks associated with depleted uranium are both chemical and radiological."



How much does it take to "generate significant medical consequences"? What do they consider to be "significant medical consequences"? My bet is that it's another case of "saccarin". Bottom line: If you pump enough of ANYTHING in huge amounts into the human body, you will create problems. I find it highly suspicious that this little detail of "how much" was left out. If they had done a proper study, that little piece of info would most certainly be available....so why didn't they include it? "Significant medical consequences" to who? Significant to them. In other words it's significant for the purposes of their agenda. I'd like to know what they consider to be "significant".....wouldn't you? Again, where are the details? They are conspicuously absent. Dont' you think they would have included the details if there was any potential for shock-effect? Sorry, but we only have half (if that) of the story here.....and as I have stated before, half of the story is more dangerous than an outright lie.



Quote: The health consequences are fearsome: Americium, with a half-life of 7,300 years, decays to plutonium-239, which is 200,000 times more radioactive than U-238, the material the Department of Defense has claimed to be "depleted uranium."



In order for an element to decay into another element (Americium to Plutonium), the decaying element must emit protons. What kind of radiation is this? Yep, you guessed it. Alpha again. If you remember, this is the kind that you have to take internally in order for it to do any real damage. The other missing piece of info (here we go with half-truths again) is the percentage of Americium found in DU. My guess is that it is INSIGNIFICANT, OR THEY WOULD HAVE POSTED THAT LITTLE PIECE OF INFO! Another piece of conspicuously missing information. Coincidence? Sorry....I don't believe in them. What do they consider a "significant" percentage? And based on what scientific data? Too many missing pieces to draw any conclusions at all. But that is what people do when they want to lead you into drawing the conclusions they want you to.....they give you only the info that will succeed in doing just that, and leave the other pieces out.



As far as becoming part of the food chain, NATURALLY OCCURING URANIUM ALREADY IS PART OF THE FOOD CHAIN!!! We should be more concerned about other things that are introduced into the food chain....like pesticides and Mercury (which, by the way, is cumulative over the course of your life....while radiation is not!) Again, you must have a degree of radioactivity that is concentrated to have the nasty effects these "reports" are claiming. The facts don't support this EVEN REMOTELY! There is niether the concentration, nor the level of radioactivity that is required to cause the kind of damage these "so-called" news agncies make claims to.



The people who write this "stuff" either aren't very bright, or they are looking to further their own agendas by spreading half-truths and misinformation. So much for truth in reporting.

[Seismic Anamoly]

Quote:

---

Yet again, more half-truths.....

---

WHA??? SURELY not in THIS Forum, DT7....

[DreamTone7]

One more note. As stated in my previous post, Americium decays by alpha radiation (with some low-level gamma). After doing a little research (VERY little), I find that the article posted by Debbie was somewhat incorrect. The most stable form of Americium is isotope 243.....this must be the one the article refers to as it is the one with a half-life of about 7,370 years. This isotope of Americium does NOT decay to Plutonium as the article stated, but to Neptunium 239. This isotope of Neptunium has a half-life of only 2.4 DAYS and THEN decays through beta emission to form Plutonium 239. Americium is not highly radioactive......less radioactive than the Americium used in your smoke-detectors in your house! (That is Americium 241, with a half-life of 432.2 years) Consider then that it takes MORE than 7,370 years (due to the interim step of Neptunium) for half of the Americium to decay into Plutonium 239. That's a long time from now. And with the low levels of such elements in DU that I suspect exist, the potential for Plutonium poisoning is practically zero.



One gram of Plutonium produces about 5 REM. For perspective, we receive about 0.3 REM each year of natural radiation (known a background radiation) from the sun and the earth. One gram is a lot of Plutonium....probably more than currently exists in all the DU created since its invention (due to the long half-life of Americium), so the only real danger would be, again, ingesting or inhaling it. Again, don't eat rocks. And since it is estimated that only 0.05% of any pre-existing Plutonium would become airborne in an exploding round, the odds of inhaling enough to be dangerous are for all intents and purposes, zero.



Half-truths = Lies as far as I'm concerned....and they spread panick in the minds of those willing to eat whatever they are fed.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

"Significant medical consequences" to who?

---

...to whom?



It's ok, though. I understand what you mean.