Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
marksimons

Depleted Uranium - Please Read

Recommended Posts

Gulf War Syndrome might have something to do with that Depleted Uranium... this shit is harsh and has been used in Iraq and in the Balkans.

here we have an example of the military and the energy industry coming together to form a great alliance. except if you're exposed to it and get radiation poisoning, or your mother is, and you're born deformed.

regardless of whether you're american, british, iraqi, whatever, this will kill you. we should tell people about this.

What I have learned from my work is that uranium munitions must be banned," Dr Rokke said.

"When we can no longer clean up the environment and we can no longer provide medical care for anybody that's exposed, then that weapon must never be used in conflict."

Jacob Grech, of the OzPeace Network, said while Australia did not use depleted uranium munitions, the country exported between 2500 and 3000 tonnes of uranium to the United States each year for energy.

"It's the waste energy products that is used in the manufacture of these munitions.

"From the very start, before they are even made, Australia and the Australian government is complicit in the production of these weapons."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/23/1056220529069.html

After the Americans destroyed our village and killed many of us, we also lost our houses and have nothing to eat. However, we would have endured these miseries and even accepted them, if the Americans had not sentenced us all to death. When I saw my deformed grandson, I realized that my hopes of the future have vanished for good, different from the hopelessness of the Russian barbarism, even though at that time I lost my older son Shafiqullah. This time, however, I know we are part of the invisible genocide brought on us by America, a silence death from which I know we will not escape." (Jooma Khan of Laghman province, March 2003)

These words were uttered by an aggrieved Afghan grandfather, who saw his own and that of others' familial extinction at the hands of the United States of America and her allies. Another Afghan, who also saw his demise, said:

"I realized this slow, yet certain death, when I saw blood in my urine and developed severe pain in my kidneys along with breathing problems I never had before. Many of my family members started to complain from confusion and the pregnant women miscarried their babies while others gave birth to disabled infants" (Akbar Khan from Paktika province, February 2003)

The perpetuation of the perpetual death in Afghanistan continues with the passage of each day. Every day, people see the silent death striking their families and friends, hopeless and terrified at the sight of the next funeral in their minds' eyes. This indiscriminate murder of the Afghan people continues while those, whose tax money paid for the monstrous weapons and brought about this genocide pretend as though all is well. The horrific pictures of those dying--whose bodies do not correlate to their age since they have internalized so much uranium dust that it impacted the morphology of their bodies--remain in the memories of those still living who are fearfully waiting for their turn of disaster. The pregnant women are afraid from giving birth to babies--horrified to see a deformity instead of a healthy child. This is the legacy of the US "liberation", an indiscriminate murder of the weak and the unarmed that do not have any means of self-defense. In fact, there is no defensive measure against such Weapons of Mass Destruction because these deadly particles of uranium oxide--the dust formed after uranium pulverizes upon impacting a target--remain in soil, water and cover the surface of vegetation for generations to come.

http://www.rense.com/general37/InvisibleGenocid.html

Yet the US was well aware of the potential effects on civilians and military personnel of the chemical toxicity and radiological properties of DU ammunition long before the Gulf war began, as the following excerpts of a US Army document categorically state:

"Aerosol DU (Depleted Uranium) exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects. [...] Under combat conditions, the most exposed individuals are probably ground troops that re-enter a battlefield following the exchange of armour-piercing munitions. [...] We are simply highlighting the potential for levels of DU exposure to military personnel during combat that would be unacceptable during peacetime operations. [...DU is..]... a low level alpha radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage. [...] Short term effects of high doses can result in death, while long term effects of low doses have been linked to cancer. [...] Our conclusion regarding the health and environmental acceptability of DU penetrators assume both controlled use and the presence of excellent health physics management practices. Combat conditions will lead to the uncontrolled release of DU. [...] The conditions of the battlefield, and the long term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU kinetic penetrators for military applications."

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

oh fuck. I was going to put pictures here of the baby deformities. but shit. no, click the link, look, but be warned, very very disturbing images.

liberated but your children poisoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DU was made to crack open tanks and penetrate other hard armor, not to be people-friendly.

It's not the shell itself that's toxic. The radioactivity is all alpha particles: You can curl up with one of these for all your life and have no ill effects.

it's what happens when it's fired. Uranium is a serious fire hazard when it's exposed to heat or flame and it'll emit dust.

the shell is not what's toxic. The Uranium Oxide and Uranyl Nitrites are what's bad.

in other words, this is all the more reason not to piss America off enough to make them shoot at you. There is more damage to be done than just losing some military hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeh but cant this be considered chemical warfare? the same thing that bush and his cabinet chastise saddam for?

ive seen first hand the effects of depleted uranium. after 78 days of shelling , construction workers...soldiers..contractors all began to work on clearing the rubble and fixing up the buildings hit by NATO bombs......a year later the cancer rate in Serbia surged for the first time in years..and people who never had a family history started to come down with it. after investigation it was uncovered that a good percentage of the people who worked on clearing the rubble and construction came down with some form of cancer.

by the way the study was done by a dutch group...so dont gime that biased info theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by ghhhhhost

yeh but cant this be considered chemical warfare? the same thing that bush and his cabinet chastise saddam for?

nope. DU is nasty stuff, no doubt... but it doesnt touch chem warfare. DU basically has a similar effect as dropping lead onto a battlefield, in terms of what Uranium Oxide and Uranyl Nitrate do to the kidneys and what the airborne dust does to the lungs.

chem warfare is a whole other thing. You might live in a DU contaminated area for a year or two [or more] until you start seeing the effects.

sarin or anthrax or any of the chem/bio agents will kill you in a time frame from a few seconds to a few days.

it's like comparing a termite infestation to a crane with a wrecking ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by marksimons

did you look at the deformities in the babies/

He doesn't care about deformed babeis...only deformed US soldiers, if that. It's probably one less "terroristsA" we'll have to worry about in his eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by jamiroguy1

He doesn't care about deformed babeis...only deformed US soldiers, if that. It's probably one less "terroristsA" we'll have to worry about in his eyes.

and you speak for what i do and dont care about?

dont put words in my mouth.

I DO care about the soldiers. I care about getting our boys home alive. Do YOU care about the people in Iraq? Do you really?

If they had absolutely nothing to do with your ability to point out how much you hate bush, would you still care?

Would you still care about them if you couldn't use them as an excuse for why you hate the united states military and its leaders?

Do you want to see dead US soldiers coming home in coffins instead? How about we issue ammunition to our army that doesn't do the job the first time around. That would definitely be a more HUMANE thing, wouldn't it? After all this is all about the wellfare of the Iraqi people isn't it? This is all one big argument of why the Iraqi people are the center of this debate, because obviously they're the focus of why you think the US military is a brutal oppressive force.

You know that, before you even say any more, why dont you take a plane ticket to Baghdad and when you get there, you go visit some of the mass graves where thousands of iraqis were SHOT and BURIED in ditches with BULLDOZERS. By SADDAM.

Before you even CONSIDER damning the US military and crying for the poor defenseless Iraqis, you go ahead and take a good fucking look at the thousands upon thousands of people who never lived to see today because they were branded as "dissidents" and executed like cattle by a dictator who put HIS political survival ahead of the wellfare of his own people.

Then when you're done seeing that i want you to go to Germany and visit the remains of the holocaust camps. Maybe if you're smart you might notice a similarity between the two.

Next time you want to get on your high horse about what I think, shut up and consider the impact of the words coming out of your mouth before i'm forced to hand you your ass all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think one difference is that we are not responsible for the deaths of dissidents while we are responsible for killing an untold amount of iraqis. sure saddam was a ruthless dictator but that's no excuse alone to take him out. especially when the best interests of the iraqi people was not the motive of the invasion. and what about other dictators like saddam, surely you could agree kim jong-il of north korea is worse than saddam. why is there no cry to take him out? what is the difference there? the only difference would be that saddam is an arab and what kind of arguement is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first off, let's stop the bullshit about what the war was and was not about. neither side can prove it any more than they can prove there's life elsewhere in the universe.

second, i'ts called "Pick your battles carefully."

if a guy sees a husband beating the shit out of his wife in their house until she's severely crippled, is he wrong for doing something to stop that? Is he wrong for going over to that house and trying to put an end to this problem, even if the police say they dont care or they're unwilling to put their ass and resources on the line?

and let's say for argument's sake that he manages to get the husband thrown in jail or causes him to bolt out the backdoor and run for his life.

does that obligate the guy to go to EVERY HOUSE around the entire town to do the same thing? Especially a house where one of the husbands is also a maniac and doesn't care about blowing up half the neighborhood as long as it means he'll stay in his own home? [i.e Kim Jong]

you want the US to stay out of everyone's hair and in the next breath you want to know why the US wont solve everyone's problem.

the reason the world sees the United States in such a bad light is because the rest of the world doesn't know how to police their own backyard, gets mad when the US drops by to do just that, and then complains when the US doesn't police EVERYONE's backyard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by cintron

and you speak for what i do and dont care about?

dont put words in my mouth.

I DO care about the soldiers. I care about getting our boys home alive. Do YOU care about the people in Iraq? Do you really?

If they had absolutely nothing to do with your ability to point out how much you hate bush, would you still care?

Would you still care about them if you couldn't use them as an excuse for why you hate the united states military and its leaders?

Do you want to see dead US soldiers coming home in coffins instead? How about we issue ammunition to our army that doesn't do the job the first time around. That would definitely be a more HUMANE thing, wouldn't it? After all this is all about the wellfare of the Iraqi people isn't it? This is all one big argument of why the Iraqi people are the center of this debate, because obviously they're the focus of why you think the US military is a brutal oppressive force.

You know that, before you even say any more, why dont you take a plane ticket to Baghdad and when you get there, you go visit some of the mass graves where thousands of iraqis were SHOT and BURIED in ditches with BULLDOZERS. By SADDAM.

Before you even CONSIDER damning the US military and crying for the poor defenseless Iraqis, you go ahead and take a good fucking look at the thousands upon thousands of people who never lived to see today because they were branded as "dissidents" and executed like cattle by a dictator who put HIS political survival ahead of the wellfare of his own people.

Then when you're done seeing that i want you to go to Germany and visit the remains of the holocaust camps. Maybe if you're smart you might notice a similarity between the two.

Next time you want to get on your high horse about what I think, shut up and consider the impact of the words coming out of your mouth before i'm forced to hand you your ass all over again.

Listen, son... I'm just working off your response:

this is all the more reason not to piss America off enough to make them shoot at you. There is more damage to be done than just losing some military hardware.

Mass Graves? How do you think these graves got there... The support of our government when Saddam was our ally so don't give me that shit like it was all evil Saddam. As a matter fact fuck Saddam... He'll rot in Hell with George Bush Sr., Ronald Regan, and all the rest of those murdering bastards that killed the thousands that you talk about.

Contrary to what you think, I do value life. All life. And that includes babies in Iraq or US Soldiers. I actually have friends in the military that were shipped out after 9/11 and also arab friends that were forced out of the country not because they were terrorist but because they are were students with problems with they're visas so I actually have friends in the region so you can go fuck yourself if you think I'm so detached from the situation there.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by cintron

first off, let's stop the bullshit about what the war was and was not about. neither side can prove it any more than they can prove there's life elsewhere in the universe.

second, i'ts called "Pick your battles carefully."

the official reason was saddams alleged weaons of mass destruction, i don't think that is any secret, that was what bush said at the start of this whole thing. this in itself is a selfish reason and in my opinion doesn't justify a war. it is just as justifiable as hitler starting ww2. he saw the soviet union as an imminent threat. and if you know anything about communism you'd know that part of the idea is for the entire world to dissolve its 'nationalism' and become one, thus an imminent threat to germany. in fact i would argue that hitler was more justified for starting ww2 and attempting to destroy communism, given the 50 year cold war that ensued after ww2 was over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by cintron

nope. DU is nasty stuff, no doubt... but it doesnt touch chem warfare. DU basically has a similar effect as dropping lead onto a battlefield, in terms of what Uranium Oxide and Uranyl Nitrate do to the kidneys and what the airborne dust does to the lungs.

chem warfare is a whole other thing. You might live in a DU contaminated area for a year or two [or more] until you start seeing the effects.

sarin or anthrax or any of the chem/bio agents will kill you in a time frame from a few seconds to a few days.

it's like comparing a termite infestation to a crane with a wrecking ball.

hey if aitn a bullet...and its gota chemical in it..and someone is shooting it at me..i call it a chemical weapon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by jamiroguy1

Listen, son... I'm just working off your response:

Mass Graves? How do you think these graves got there... The support of our government when Saddam was our ally so don't give me that shit like it was all evil Saddam. As a matter fact fuck Saddam... He'll rot in Hell with George Bush Sr., Ronald Regan, and all the rest of those murdering bastards that killed the thousands that you talk about.

Contrary to what you think, I do value life. All life. And that includes babies in Iraq or US Soldiers. I actually have friends in the military that were shipped out after 9/11 and also arab friends that were forced out of the country not because they were terrorist but because they are were students with problems with they're visas so I actually have friends in the region so you can go fuck yourself if you think I'm so detached from the situation there.

:rolleyes:

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by jamiroguy1

Listen, son... I'm just working off your response:

Mass Graves? How do you think these graves got there... The support of our government when Saddam was our ally so don't give me that shit like it was all evil Saddam. As a matter fact fuck Saddam... He'll rot in Hell with George Bush Sr., Ronald Regan, and all the rest of those murdering bastards that killed the thousands that you talk about.

In Bowling for Columbine did you blame the Guns or the people pulling the triggers?

Just curious....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by mr mahs

In Bowling for Columbine did you blame the Guns or the people pulling the triggers?

Just curious....

I blame their rich cracker parents for not looking in on what those misguided little turds were doing. For christ sakes they were making bombs and had guns at I think 17 and 16, right?

Actually, this is one of the things that I strongly disagree with Michael Moore on. Gun control. I think everyone has the right to posess a gun. I have several.

mass_murderers.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

michael moore is pro gun, he is a lifelong member of the NRA, he just is curious as to why the murder rate from guns in america is sooo high.

you can have guns and not kill people.

see canada.

7 million guns, 30 million people, not a crazy amount of homicide.

the problem is culture, and guns in the wrong hands, and drugs.

but that's got not much to do with this thread.

btw America has actually used chemical weapons in the past. I believe against china and korea in the 50's, plus there is agent orange in vietnam.

lest not forget also the only state to actually use a nuclear weapon, which was not vital to winning the war, or saving american lives - japan would've surrendered anyway.

depleted uranium is I believe actually illegal under international law, but again, info not at my fingertips, but I'm sure it was...

the special importance attached to 'chemical' or 'biological' or 'WMD' is a bit of a media trick - again.

I would say that depleted uranium is a chemical weapon, they're tipped in fucking radioactive uranium or whatever!

also, if you read one of the sites I posted a link to you will see that the US Soldier who has made one of them comments on the fact that they're supposed to be anti machinery or whatever, but that most of the damage appears to be to the human life, and the steel appears a-ok in places...

and it's not just inhaling this stuff which makes you ill, it's exposure, it's radioactive, and this is waste uranium from the energy industry, pretty sure it's got more than just alpha particles in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well then i guess i'm fucked becuase i have here on my desk two shell casings from a GAU 8/A.

had em for six years now. Gee whiz... i wonder why i'm not sick with all the radioactive dust and uranium oxide that should make these things glow in the dark?

:rolleyes:

enough with the hysterics. it's ridiculous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's two, that's shell casings, are the DU tipped shell casings or are they standard ammo from that? 'cause that gun can use normal or non DU ammo from what I just read.

also, I'd argue that the shell casings aint the same as the effects of having the ammo explode on impact with the DU stuff.

and there is a diff between two shell casings and nearly a million rounds of the stuff being fired over a country...

In January 1996, Brent Scowcroft, the former US National Security Advisor, was interviewed by Channel 4 UK Television for their documentary 'The Magic Bullet.' During his interview he stated:

"Depleted Uranium is more of a problem than we thought when it was developed. But it was developed according to standards, and was thought through very carefully. It turned out, perhaps, to be wrong."

http://www.firethistime.org/du.htm

In 1996, the UN Subcommission on Human Rights classified Depleted Uranium ammunition as an indiscriminate 'Weapon of Mass Destruction', and a 'Crime Against Humanity'. In my own opinion, the use of DU, and the subsequent massive efforts to downplay its' after-effects represents one of the most stupendous and outrageous lies ever told by Western governments.

A minimum of 940,000 rounds of DU were fired by US forces during the Gulf 'war'. An estimated 300 metric tonnes of DU material was deposited over vast tracts of land, primarily in Southern Iraq. A letter was sent to the Royal UK Ordnance on April 21st 1991, by Paddy Bartholomew, Business Development Manager of AEA Technology, the trading name for the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Enclosed was a 'threat paper', marked 'UK restricted' which set out the true nature of the contamination:

The US military were well aware of the health risks of DU, long before the Gulf war, as the following document excerpts make clear:

"[...] Personnel in or near (less than approximately 50 metres) an armoured vehicle at the time these vehicles were struck by Depleted Uranium munitions could receive significant internal DU exposures (i.e. those in excess of allowable standards)."

- Excerpt from a US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) report 1989. The BRL study determined that an average of 79% of airborne DU particles measured downwind of an impacted vehicle were of respirable size (less then 10 microns in diameter), meaning that if inhaled they could become permanently trapped in the lungs. (Information provided by Colonel Eric Daxon, Radiation Protection Staff Officer of the US Army Medical Command, in a 1996 letter to researcher Dan Fahey).

"Aerosol DU (Depleted Uranium) exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects. [...] Under combat conditions, the most exposed individuals are probably ground troops that re-enter a battlefield following the exchange of armour-piercing munitions. [...] We are simply highlighting the potential for levels of DU exposure to military personnel during combat that would be unacceptable during peacetime operations. [...DU is..]... a low level alpha radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage. [...] Short term effects of high doses can result in death, while long term effects of low doses have been linked to cancer. [...] Our conclusion regarding the health and environmental acceptability of DU penetrators assume both controlled use and the presence of excellent health physics management practices. Combat conditions will lead to the uncontrolled release of DU. [...] The conditions of the battlefield, and the long term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU kinetic penetrators for military applications.

^^^^ That's from a US Army man

Levels of cancer, particularly in Southern Iraq where the majority of the DU was fired, have skyrocketed. In some areas the increase is as much as ten fold, whilst cancer rates across the country have risen by a minimum of 100%, with children experiencing a 250% increase. The Iraqi Atomic Agency estimated in 1999 that 48% of the population had been exposed to varying degrees of carcinogenic material. Extreme birth deformities have risen as much as four fold. The true legacy of DU is yet to be seen, yet the US and UK continue to deny there is any link between this cancer epidemic and DU ammunition. The UK has no plans to discontinue its' use. DU is now possessed in the military arsenals of at least fifteen countries.

540,000 US troops served in the 'war'. 138 lost their lives in combat, friendly fire incidents and general accidents. Over 9,600 veterans have died since. Over 120,000 have filed reports of unusual, often completely debilitating, illnesses. A sigificant percentage have fathered children with extreme birth deformities.

-

to quote a show that was once good, the truth is out there...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm

has some stuff, interestingly the things stating it's safe appear a bit dubious to me. they examine 33 former US soldiers, no iraqi's and say it's safe... dunno... dubious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by marksimons

[

lest not forget also the only state to actually use a nuclear weapon, which was not vital to winning the war, or saving american lives - japan would've surrendered anyway.

Real quick about Bowling for Columbine it's the rise in out of wedlock rates that are causing the increase in violence.. I just asked Jamiro-queer the q's because he doesn't blame Sadam for killing his own people but the U.S for supplying him with the weapons when our relations were different, that's all. See the relevance in my question? Anyway...

You're wrong!

The planned invasion of Japan, prior to the dropping of the bomb would have tallied an estimated 2 million+ lives combined and they were no where near surrendering..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the thing is, I'd say the death rate from guns in the us, and saddams use of them are the same.

but it'll take me too long an explanation here...

with regards to japan - you really don't know what ur on about.

2 million lives of whom? US troops? japanese civilians?

the thiiiing is this is like dresden.

you've got to take into account the russians and the looming cold war.

dresden was decimated by the RAF, 1300 planes 3,300 tonnes of bombs, and about 35,000 people dead? why? the war was over, most dead were civilians, well, because dresden was rather to the east of germany - take a look on an atlas, go on my son - and that would show those scary russian commies - who had just sacrificed a few million people for them and us - not to get too many ideas about stuff post war.

sorta the same with Japan.

America had the bomb, and they wanted everyone to know it, especially those pesky russians.

but it wasn't tactically needed.

contrary to what you may have been taught, and this is just one of the american made history myths of the twentieth century that needs to be debunked:

In 1963 President Eisenhower said this about the use of the bomb.

“... I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.â€

diary entry for July 28, 1945, by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as

“most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in.â€

- i.e. sole control over post war Japan, unlike post war germany.

Criticism began within days of the obliteration of the two Japanese cities. On August 8, 1945, two days after the destruction of Hiroshima, former President Herbert Hoover wrote,

“The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.â€

and MOST of the 100,000 who died on the day of hiroshima, not to mention the thousands who died subsiquently, and most of the 50,000 who died on the day of Nagasaki, MOST of these were women and children.

how did killing that many innocents aid americas war effort?

apparently:

Historians are still divided over whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II. Here is a summary of arguments on both sides:

Why the bomb was needed or justified:

The Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at Okinawa. Fire bombing had killed 100,000 in Tokyo with no discernible political effect. Only the atomic bomb could jolt Japan's leadership to surrender.

With only two bombs ready (and a third on the way by late August 1945) it was too risky to "waste" one in a demonstration over an unpopulated area.

An invasion of Japan would have caused casualties on both sides that could easily have exceeded the toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The two targeted cities would have been firebombed anyway.

Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger.

The bomb's use impressed the Soviet Union and halted the war quickly enough that the USSR did not demand joint occupation of Japan.

Why the bomb was not needed, or unjustified:

Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.

American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance.

A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.

Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki.

The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.

The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.

Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/trinity/supplement/procon.html

---

well.

draw your own conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by jamiroguy1

I blame their rich cracker parents for not looking in on what those misguided little turds were doing. For christ sakes they were making bombs and had guns at I think 17 and 16, right?

Actually, this is one of the things that I strongly disagree with Michael Moore on. Gun control. I think everyone has the right to posess a gun. I have several.

:aright:

they kept using the US to Canada ratio with the guns...but they never said WHY we have a higher rate...i think the blame should be put on some of the parents...i mean, do they even pay attention to their children?? i have been around guns all my life (dad is a Vietnam Vet)...and i never picked it up as kid...i was tought from an early age how to load and unload the firearm...i was tought to ALWAYS assume the gun was loaded and never point it at anyone, even if i knew it was empty..again ALWAYS assume the firearm is locked and loaded...sorry to steer off the subject....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by mr mahs

Real quick about Bowling for Columbine it's the rise in out of wedlock rates that are causing the increase in violence.. I just asked Jamiro-queer the q's because he doesn't blame Sadam for killing his own people but the U.S for supplying him with the weapons when our relations were different, that's all. See the relevance in my question? Anyway...

You're wrong!

You need to go check history. Saddam was our ally before during and after he gassed his own people in halabja.

He was our ally and continued to get financial support...that means "money" to hold the line of "islamic fundamentalists" that were believed by the Regan Admin. to be spreading throughout the middleeast. (iran)

Our gov't gave Saddam the key to the city after all of these mass graves of people were created.

So you see mahs... you are wrong. Learn your history!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by jamiroguy1

Mass Graves? How do you think these graves got there... The support of our government when Saddam was our ally so don't give me that shit like it was all evil Saddam. As a matter fact fuck Saddam... He'll rot in Hell with George Bush Sr., Ronald Regan, and all the rest of those murdering bastards that killed the thousands that you talk about.

funny....this is how i feel about JFK and his brother....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by jamiroguy1

You need to go check history. Saddam was our ally before during and after he gassed his own people in halabja.

He was our ally and continued to get financial support...that means "money" to hold the line of "islamic fundamentalists" that were believed by the Regan Admin. to be spreading throughout the middleeast. (iran)

Our gov't gave Saddam the key to the city after all of these mass graves of people were created.

So you see mahs... you are wrong. Learn your history!!

Silly liberals....

We backed Iraq because we still held a grudge from the hostage situation debacle that another environmental loon fawked up.. you heard of him? Jimmy Carter..

Now when Iraq and Iran were at war we did what we always do we assist the person who is against the common enemy. The govt constantly changes it's not a monarch. What's policy in today's world scenario might not fit 25 years from now so we change it. Sadaam was responsible for gassing the Iranians we did'nt pull the trigger,how come you never hear that argument?

I give you a gun you go shoot your mother who's going to jail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by mr mahs

Silly liberals....

We backed Iraq because we still held a grudge from the hostage situation debacle that another environmental loon fawked up.. you heard of him? Jimmy Carter..

Now when Iraq and Iran were at war we did what we always do we assist the person who is against the common enemy. The govt constantly changes it's not a monarch. What's policy in today's world scenario might not fit 25 years from now so we change it. Sadaam was responsible for gassing the Iranians we did'nt pull the trigger,how come you never hear that argument?

I give you a gun you go shoot your mother who's going to jail?

:spin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×