Great post yoepus!!! You have far more patience to research the details of facts than me. I do disagree with a few of your statements however

quote:

To fire in Uranium tipped munitions that so thoroughly burn out the objects they come into contact with (including people, as evidenced by the charred bodies in those photos) and then to have the radiation from these munitions to stay around even now, more than a decade later and to cause a very sharp rise in the rate of both birth defects and cancer occurances in the near area is morally reprehensible, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it

You misrepresent the purpose of depleted uranium shells. While I do not approve of their use, you are depicting them as anti-personel weapons that "burn" those that they come in contact with. As a matter of fact, their sole purpose is to function as an anti-armor weapon. THe depleted uranium bullets have significant effectiveness against armor platforms as a result of their sheer strengh to pierce armour. They have no more incidiary capabilities than regular bullets. As a matter of fact the only weapon platform that is capable of firing depleted uranium shells is the A-10 wharthog ... a renouned anti-tank killer designed to combat the mass multitudes of soviet tanks. Many people depict that ALL US warplanes use depleted uranium shells when that is false since most warplanes are equipped with vulcan 20mm cannons that are incompatable with uranium shells. Think about it, what use would an air-superiority fighter have for a gun that can pierce multiple inches of armour when something that fires at a much higher rate, and need only pierce aluminum would suffice? The A-10 is the only plane that was actually built AROUND the gun that was specifically designed with the capabilities to destroy tanks.

The second remark that I disagree with is poking fun at renegade for taking time to make a responsce . In all fairness we took some time to make our responces as well hehe.

Haha, bloody hell, this is going to take ages to reply to.

Good posts, though I still obviously don't agree with everything there. Gimme a couple of days.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Great post yoepus!!! You have far more patience to research the details of facts than me. I do disagree with a few of your statements however

Ok lets get at them...

quote:

You misrepresent the purpose of depleted uranium shells.

You are right, it was not my intention. The paragraph you quoted, was incorrectly quoted in my reply and should be credit to Renegade. If you will follow the paragraph below that you will see my real thoughts. Regardless of their use in weaponized for, the use of depleted-uranium is also used on armor to strength it. Therefore, even if the US might not have fired depleted-uranium shells, the hulls of some Iraqi tanks perhaps contained this material and cause the supposed "contamination". In all fairness however as I pointed out, we don't know the effects of depleted uranium as not enough research has been done, and seond we don't know who actually did use it or not.

quote:

The second remark that I disagree with is poking fun at renegade for taking time to make a responsce . In all fairness we took some time to make our responces as well hehe.

I'll agree here too, although I did not mean it as a joke against Renegade... simply the length of my reply however made me damn well feel it should take a few days to reply I'd be insulted any other way, but I give Kudos to both you and Renegade for staying up with this thread .... just as its getting interesting, and horribly long-winded

Actually allow me to correct myself after doing more research in the matter. While DU rounds do not carry explosive or incindiary charges, the round itself relies on the pyrophoric properties of uranium to generate heat on impact. This heat aids the round in penetrating through steel plating into the interior of the vehicle. Seems like a bloody effective weapon against tanks.

And a lot of people post websites that seem to overdramatasize the effects of DU rounds and contain something like 5 paragraphs of content. I read the World Health Organizations's investigation into DU shells at Kosovo and I was actually surprised by the results. Essentially the conclusions reached were that the only real way that the DU can be POTENTIALLY harmful to civilans is if it were contaminate water supplies. However it concludes that this would be very unlikely since it is a solid, very slow degrading metallic form. The only real threat would be if a round were to fall directly into a village well or something like that, and no cases of such were found in Kosovo. Here's one quote:

quote:

Unnecessary speculation and anxiety about the potential for risks from depleted uranium, which, from what the mission can judge so far, are not present or minimal, are being fuelled by the different opinions expressed as a consequence of the normal process of scientific debate, as well as by the lack of a common communication strategy.

Here's the full report:

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiati...uranium_Eng.pdf

For the conclusions fast forward to pages 25-30. I might just change my mind on DU shells after all.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus You are right, it was not my intention. The paragraph you quoted, was incorrectly quoted in my reply and should be credit to Renegade.

Whoops my mistake.

quote:

I'll agree here too, although I did not mean it as a joke against Renegade... simply the length of my reply however made me damn well feel it should take a few days to reply

Haha yes a good argument does take a while to research.

quote:

I'd be insulted any other way, but I give Kudos to both you and Renegade for staying up with this thread .... just as its getting interesting, and horribly long-winded

If you ask me, when they start getting long-winded is when the threads get good. All the one-post flamers are gone and those that are actually interested in discussing the issue are left.

It is now becoming extremely shameful to live in this fucking country... i cant believe they are actually doing this.

these photos are media propoganda probably by some greasy french reporter.

The fact is iraqi children are dancing on american british and every other westerners grave who are captured and killed by them.

Who shot down that coalition helicopter. An iraqi farmer. Thats who. so fuck them and fuck everybody else who doesn't support our men and women out there.

What is on the front page of the scottish tabloids. iraqi children celebrating about the capture and inevitable excexution of our men. so fuck them.

quote:

Originally posted by chesco these photos are media propoganda probably by some greasy french reporter. The fact is iraqi children are dancing on american british and every other westerners grave who are captured and killed by them. Who shot down that coalition helicopter. An iraqi farmer. Thats who. so fuck them and fuck everybody else who doesn't support our men and women out there. What is on the front page of the scottish tabloids. iraqi children celebrating about the capture and inevitable excexution of our men. so fuck them.

makes you wonder why the US is in their the first place?.. if the iraqis feel this way aobut the allied troops it only shows that they do not want them invading their country.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit makes you wonder why the US is in their the first place?.. if the iraqis feel this way aobut the allied troops it only shows that they do not want them invading their country.

This may sound really childish, but the only reason bush sent his men in there is to finish the job his daddy started. It's not about protecting iraqi people, it's not about oil it's about bush trying to live up to daddy.

There was no talk of iraq until 9/11, so bush uses this to fire bogus claims on iraq about his part in these atrocities, and so has reason to go in and start bombing.

quote:

Originally posted by chesco This may sound really childish, but the only reason bush sent his men in there is to finish the job his daddy started. It's not about protecting iraqi people, it's not about oil it's about bush trying to live up to daddy. There was no talk of iraq until 9/11, so bush uses this to fire bogus claims on iraq about his part in these atrocities, and so has reason to go in and start bombing.

right... thats very logical... bush never mentioned iraq until 9/11 when all of a sudden he realized he has to start living up to his daddy and do him a favor. it couldnt be that simply after 9/11 bush realized we shouldnt wait to deal with threating countries and orginizations who would target the western world... naa that cant be, its too simple an answer...

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy right... thats very logical... bush never mentioned iraq until 9/11 when all of a sudden he realized he has to start living up to his daddy and do him a favor. it couldnt be that simply after 9/11 bush realized we shouldnt wait to deal with threating countries and orginizations who would target the western world... naa that cant be, its too simple an answer...

they've always had something against iraq.. i think 9/11 was just an excuse to go back there


there is no link between iraq and al quaida... at least not yet.. think about it.. how many of the high jackers were iraqi.. i thought most of them were egyptian heh.. i hope egypt isnt next on the list!

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit they've always had something against iraq.. i think 9/11 was just an excuse to go back there

i'll agree, i was just argueing the arguement with chesco that bush never mentioned iraq before 9/11

quote:

there is no link between iraq and al quaida... at least not yet.. think about it.. how many of the high jackers were iraqi.. i thought most of them were egyptian heh.. i hope egypt isnt next on the list!

i can differentiate between the threat iraq poses and the threat al-qaeda poses. there may or may not be a link between the two, to me this is irrelevent. i think that 9/11 helped Bush realize that there are threats to the US and the western world and we must not sit idle and let them materialize. regardless of connections to 9/11 a threat is a threat and the US has chosen to eliminate those threats it deems nessaccary.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.