|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 10th, 2003 05:43 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ranxer |
Life magazine took a look at veterans and families suffering from gulf war syndrome... http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html  they somehow neglect to mention DU and Dr. Douge Rokke www.traprockpeace.org but they mention nearly every other biological factor in gw1 cool zhukov, i hope you can avoid depression while delving into the secrets of what our taxes are funding around the world. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 8th, 2003 10:28 AM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Zhukov |
What a coincidence ranxer! I bought that book yesterday! Although my copy has an apache on the cover. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 8th, 2003 01:29 AM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Helm |
I will try to keep TEH ANGER!!1! to a minimum. "Okay let's take this from the top. You are making a distinction between weapons of mass destruction (nuclear warheads and anything with a 'significant' (ugh) blast radius ) over 'smart' munitions that can maximise efficiency and minimise error, right?" Quote:
"As far I can understand this, any OFFENSIVE military system that has been designed towards aquiring targets outside the radius of the owner's country in question differs from WMD's only in the amount of damage it's designed to inflict." Quote:
"I'm not saying it's a negligible difference, but it doesn't negate the argument." Quote:
Quote:
You're saying it's okay for whatever country to have WMDs, as long as they do not use them? Quote:
Quote:
This is the crux of the matter. Explain how you leading the world in all those respects grants you the right to step in anywhere in the world. Don't cop out on me on this one. Quote:
How about not going into war? This is as fallacious as any argument can get. The burden of choice has always been on you, and you cannot shift it so easily. DU is dangerous. Yet you used it. What choice did you have? EVERY choice. Refute this, if you will. Humour me by explaining how you absolutely HAD to go into war in Iraq. Quote:
Well, there's shifting the burden of action over to Sadaam too. HE made the choice to escalate things, and HE is to blame for civilian deaths. Oh well. And if I remember correctly, anyone that isn't with you is against you. Thusly all those innocent civilians (the vast percentage of which was definately against the administration that is bombing their country) aren't really all that innocent, are they? Quote:
Quote:
This attitude of yours disturbs me. Are you saying that sometimes the ends justify the means? That the death of anyone, and the contamination of their lands is 'the price of freedom'? Quote:
Quote:
This is the case of you forcing your belief system over the rest of the world, step by step, for lack of another stabilizing superpower. Sure democracy is great and wonderful. We invented the damned method of goverment. But it should be up to every country to choose how it will govern it's own affairs, and if we do not like it, we should persue our goals diplomatically. I simply refuse to stand by Carl Von Clausewitz's aphorism that War is the continuation of politics by other means. Quote:
As to Liberia, it will be a nice little 'peaceful mediation' will it not? Quote:
Quote:
The political leadership that you will provide for Iraq will no doubt be furthering the US political agenda. And let's not talk about oil. You're hiding behind your finger. Anything scathingly sarcastic to add? Quote:
Quote:
Naturally I was talking about said two cases. Quote:
Quote:
The nature of the attack has not been defined strongly. For all we know, of someone throws a rock at your embassy at any place around the world, you could be lobbing nuclear weapons at them. There's not much difference between such a loose statement and N.Korea feeling economically of militarily threatened by the US. So, what makes either of the two more justified? Quote:
Quote:
As to you being done with this topic, whatever. I hoped for less asininity and more constructive discussion, but hey, suit yourself. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 09:58 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ranxer |
alright, well as you can tell i dont' know much of anything specifically about fas.. i was going out on the limb of suspected to be the case.. i'm happy to hear the fas is a healthy organizition, (and note that i should know more about them) but ill take what you said as a generality and wonder even more why they would back the dod with regards to DU. i speak a lot about suspicians and make accusations even, but what else is there to do with things that we know are in dispute.. when do we know something is indesputable? when is it that one should trust that the fas isnt being duped or capitulating to pressure? with regards to du i SUSPECT that the fas has risked a bunch of credibility at this point.. and i still don't know diddly specifically about the fas. 8) i look forward to the day they recant =) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 09:36 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 09:27 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
Did you know that they often publish criticisms of the government? Did you know that it is not financially motivated, these scientists do it on their own time? No, and you don't want to hear it because its just more reality to rain in on your little desperate cries for attention. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 09:18 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ranxer |
bwhah, fas? financially motivated yes, right wing conservatives.. i dunno, but if they bucked the military(DOD), the president, and the 'militarty industrial complex' they'd be in a bit of trouble don't you think? i'm sorry but most institutions in the united states will go along with whatever the dod says is true. maybe if we had a lot of pressure from other countries, the media, the people and our representatives we would see the fas do an honest study.. but not till all that lines up. do you have any idea how big this issue is? do you have any idea what the ramifications are when DU is confirmed as a WMD? i really think the US has pursued getting its manufacture(readying for weapons) out of the US and into as many other countries as possible and sold to as many countries as possible to avoid being alone in guilt.. the more dirty hands.. the harder it is to get the truth out. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 08:56 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| El Blanco |
Since when are the FAS a bunch of right-wing conservatives? You know what their agenda is? Spreading information. Honestly, most of your sources have more to gain through booksales and attention than any scientist I have seen who refute those claims. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 08:52 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ranxer |
hmm, i dont recall saying how many have died of exposure to DU.. i can tell you that the US military says its harmless and that it wanted to prove it .. they SAID they were going to take blood samples of all military in theater with DU munitions but then decided on a questionaire instead.. then they didnt even do that(gee i wonder why).. and i can tell you that the british forces HAVE sampled blood before and after working in theater with DU rounds so we should learn something from that. The only numbers i cited recently are how many tons we have used. how many dead?? i don't claim to know but i believe a few sources and feel very strongly that they will be vindicated in the long run.. hopefully it wont be as long as vietnam protesters had to wait. I also believe that the numbers will be strongly attacked.. could you imagine the reparations that would have to be paid if DU were considered a wmd? and finally i do believe that DU is the number one cause of Gulf War Syndrome.. and expect to see soldiers coming forward with symptoms similar to gwI syndrome.. if its true, this won't go away.. if not.. ill admit i was barking up the wrong tree.. don't forget that scientists readily admit they mostly don't operate on a moral basis, they operate on a financial basis.. why would anybody that is pro-american fund a real study on DU? i'm betting (and would love to be proven wrong) that any studies on the effect of du are bought out by right wing or corporate criminal institions to protect the wmd industry. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 08:15 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| GAsux |
Same old, same old You know it's kind of a trend here. Every time we have the DU argument, Ranxer explains how DU is responsible for killing millions of Bosnian/Iraqi/whoevers. First, I think you ought to check your numbers because if Du alone killed that many people, there would be no Iraqis left. The birth rate could not possibly keep up with the unbelievable natural mortality rate, no to mention the hundreds/thousands/millions you claim are dying as a result of DU. And it's a good safe argument for you. You see, all you have to do is claim that all those deaths ARE a result of DU. How can anyone argue that? "Well actually the cancer was caused by prolonged exposure to Diet Dr. Pepper." You see, your claiming as fact something that is little more than opinion at this point. The worst part of it is, if that's what you want to believe, more power to you. But when you completely disregard everything that challenges your claim as "government propaghanda" you're only kidding yourself. DU very may well be the cause of hundreds/thousands/millions of deaths. I find it strange that so many scientists agree that DU effects won't be known for quite some time, and only after a significant long term study. Perhaps you've choosen the wrong career path, since apparently your research has already proved conclusive, at least in your mind. Maybe you could help explain it to the scientists. I have nothing against people who have deep rooted convictions and opinions. I don't however so much like people who have convinced themselves that their opinions are facts. Here's the bottom line: FACT: Studies on the health effects of DU are varied and inconclusive. But ignore this Ranxer, as you often do. Ignore it and reply by posting another site/"expert" claiming that DU is the great Satan causing all man's calamities. I'll refrain from posting equally inconclusive studies that indicate no such harmful effects can be proven so that you can go on thinking you're opinion is fact. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 07:46 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ranxer |
what's ironic? how is it ironic that i think wmd's should be based on how many are affected/killed by a tactic or weapon? and how is it hypocritical? i dont know what you are referring to blanco. i think the wmd definition has been politicised to serve as a number of the beast of sorts.. justifying murder for corporate gain. is that ironic or hypocritical? why would american introspection on wmd's be ironic or hypocritical? hypocritical!? ME? america is the king of hypocracy... do i enjoy the low prices of gas due to our fucking over anybody with no military and lots of oil? no. do i celebrate cheap prices at walmart due to prison labor in china? No. Do i reap profits from moral bankrupt capitalistic practices? NO.. hah, our government has gone WAY beyond hypocritical and ironic many times over in the last decades. im a hypocrite on lots of things but not much around politics or war stance as far as i can tell :/ |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 07:35 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| kahljorn | Well then, looks like it's all equated in the end. Japanese made the gun, we dropped the bomb. It's the Karma, baby. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 07:21 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sethomas |
The Japanese invented the gun, silly, though I think that gunpowder was first made by the Chinese. As far as DU goes, it should be pretty obvious that it's extremely lethal and there's no excuse for using it in combat. Use common sense, people. For one thing, the cancer issue is only the tip of the iceberg. Uranium is one of the most dense of the naturally occurring heavy metals, which means it has properties that are particularly nasty on living things. Just for reference, the lightest naturally occuring Uranium (which I would assume comprises DU bullets) is 238 atomic units; mercury is only 200. (If you wonder why gold is 196 AU and drinking Goldschlager never seems to cause any problems, I believe the narcissism in gold that results in its high ductility and maleability prevents adverse effects from its atoms.) Heavy metals have a strong effect on the body's delicate electric impulses, thus resulting in severe neurological defects. Eat leaded paint chips and you'll probably develop an anxiety disorder, play with too much mercury and you'll probably get palsy for months or years, come into contact with uranium or plutonium and you're looking at severe motor skills damage that may degenerate into paralysis or death. I think it's a fair assumption that the self-adhesive properties that result in the "self-sharpening" phenomenon described by Rorschach would cause minimize the amount of uranium that would enter the bloodstream from the pores of our soldiers who would presumably handle the bullets while loading their rifles. If not, it might be years before problems make themselves evident. But the problem we're looking at now is that there is a thousand tons or more of the stuff introduced into the Iraqi ecosystem. This isn't a problem that's likely to surface any time soon, but when it does it's going to hit hard. Bullets that found there way on the ground or in the soil will get rained on and will shed loose atoms into the water. The water, even if it's not drank, will end up in crops, or like mercury will run off into the ocean wherein it will difuse into fish tissue and thus be eaten later. I can't tell you exactly how lethal depleted uranium would be, but to give you a ballpark idea I believe that a spoonful of plutonium (AU: 244) dumped into a water supply could potentially kill an estimated 2 million people. As far as radiation goes, it really seems like uranium would lose its desired properties once it decays below an atomic weight of 238. According to my periodic table, all elements with an atomic mass of 208 or more have lethal radioactive properties at their ground state. It'd be absolutely rediculous to purport that DU can be stable with 30 neutrons fewer than its ground state, so I'd be pretty incredulous to claims that DU bullets pose absolutely no threat as a carcinogen. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 07:06 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| kahljorn |
"I'd say that uncertainty is reason enough not to use depleted uranium as a weapon" :-\ Should everybody stop going outside into the sun then? We put our troops in danger of skin cancer everyday! Or maybe we should've just rushed in and killed as many people as possible, right. I mean, at least they don't get cancer. I do see the point though, WMD's are bad. As for the, "US made the bomb and dropped the bomb", bit... I *think* the English made the gun. They are responsible for millions of deaths. MILLIONS. Probably more than millions. Swords? Blame the Greeks or Ancient Egypt or something. RESPONSIBLE FOR MILLIONS AND MILLIONS. They did it first so it's their fault the rest of the World did it too. It also gave the rest of the World the right to use them. All in equality. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 06:35 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| El Blanco |
So, you want to change the defenition to fit your purpose. OK, that crosses the line from ironic to hypocrite. You have nothing. Zip. Nada. That link proves nothing and why exactly is he an authority on the subject? |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 06:23 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ranxer |
 excellent book: http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm DU IS a weapon of mass destruction (effects lasting generations) and all the evidence to prove it must be quashed as quickly as possible or the US govt will be held accountable in some fashion (lawsuits by american soldiers families at very least) we dropped aprox 315 tons of DU on kuwait and Iraq in gulf war I .. i havnt heard a number for afghanistan but now the number for gulf war II is 1000 to 2000 tons of DU used. time will tell what effect that has. During gulf war one Doug Rokke and his team of doctors were releasing information about DU that the bush administration (some years later) claimed was Saddams propaganda! so now we have a huge racist and patriotic bias to use upon anyone that talks about cancer rates or deformities in Iraq. if one speaks up about it we are often called commies or anti-american.. why is it that soldiers that speak up about it are discharged and thier records 'lost' so they can't get benefits such as healthcare coverage??? one thing that really bothers me is the corporate profit on something like DU.. many of these flag wavers i run into agree with me that corporations are doing a lot of damage but when the du issue comes up they're like 'oh no, our government would Never do that" as if our government wasnt riddled with corporate crimminals making a buck on everything they can. wouldnt targetting water reclamation and basic civilian infrastructure somehow qualify as wmd tactics? i think the definition based on the number of people killed directly or indirectly should define the term WMD but that would point at the US too much so its quashed.. like the siege mentality of the iraq sanctions, it targets a whole people not specifically a military and was outlawed by non-terrorist nations a while ago(siege warfare that is). and about 'smart' bombs, as we found out after gwI the success ratio was much much less than they had hoped.. they claimed 90% or so just after the war but the numbers kept dropping after investigation. i wonder what the results were this time around. oh and thanks for the lyrics vince, i do wish i was more than amature at the guitar 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 05:19 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| El Blanco |
The other thing that gets me is that people look at the increase in cancer rate and automatically assume it is from DU. Of course, the people making these accusations aren't scientists. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 05:17 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| FS |
I'd say that uncertainty is reason enough not to use depleted uranium as a weapon. Also, using a 'possibly cancerous weapon' was not imperative to remove Saddam from power. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 05:09 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| The_Rorschach |
Yeah but Blanco, if we want to play straight, we have to put our hands down on the table too. We found out twenty years after Vietnam that Agent Orange led to developemental Luekemia. While it is yet unfounded, it is not unreasonable to expect that DU is potentially cancerous. One kilogram of ‘natural uranium’ is obtained from 1000 kg of uranium ore. Only half of this one kilogram is actually released for use in DU munitions. The remaining 999.5 kg is considered as radioactive waste. We all know how healthy radioative waste is, and even though DU is self incineratory, there is a chance that it is everybit as caustic as the circumstantial evidence posits. But I supposed that despite the fact Sadaam is responsible for gassing entire towns of Kurds in his biological weapon research program, the US is the bad guy for lightly using a possibly cancerous weapon in order to remove him from power. Talk about moral relativism. . . |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 05:03 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| El Blanco |
Do I have to go on my DU rant again? Do I? Do I have to point out that there is no documented evidence of any connection between DU and cancer? Do I have to point out that the only thing there is a bunch of speculation? Do I have to point out that there is no explosion in cancer rates in any of the US bases that thousands of rounds of DU daily for training? Do I have to link to the FAS articles that state that no reputable scientist or physician has found any evidence of a connection? Do I have to go shave my head again so I don't pull my hair out explaining this for the thousanth time? |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 04:58 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| The_Rorschach |
I think you've spent too much time meditating on philosophical matters and lost a tenative touch on reality friend. "Okay let's take this from the top. You are making a distinction between weapons of mass destruction (nuclear warheads and anything with a 'significant' (ugh) blast radius ) over 'smart' munitions that can maximise efficiency and minimise error, right?" I suggest you learn the definitions of the words you use. The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" in official U.S. documents is "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons." The U.S. president has used this definition in communications with Congress, and if you care to look them up, start here: "Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction," November 9, 2000, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, pp. 2842-2851. "Statement on Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction," May 8, 2001, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, pp. 718-719. "As far I can understand this, any OFFENSIVE military system that has been designed towards aquiring targets outside the radius of the owner's country in question differs from WMD's only in the amount of damage it's designed to inflict." What we have here is a failure. . .To communicate. "I'm not saying it's a negligible difference, but it doesn't negate the argument." I'm afraid it does. "If you have a bomb that can fly from D.C. to Afghanistan, I don't care how many people it will take out, it's still just the same as N.Korea having same weapons." It isn't about possession, its about use. Do you remember when the Soviet Union disintigrated, how there was a brief panic over what would happen to the fissionable materials and constructed warheads? Such lack of stabilities is also present in No Korea, where there are more metric tons of munition than there are food, and various other nations which have rushed to become militarily combatible with the world around them without first making their own nation a peer to its neighbours. "Doesn't give you the right to 'step in' no more than it gives N.Korea the right to do the same." Someone needs to do it. We lead the world technologically, economically and, contrary to what you've probably heard, in civility. "So, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying (to negate my original 'qualm' argument) that 'smart' weapons, yeah, you have no qualms about using, whereas we've yet to emply WMDs in a post WW2 combat situation." We stand beside the conventional arms agreement which was reached in the Geneva Accord, and the nuclear proliferation act, which we spearheaded. Indeed, western countries such as the US, Australia and Great Britain are unique in this. "I'm not arguing the validity of that claim (although I could and I should, since there's room for further clarification." Oh, by all means do. "How does a nepleted uranium bomb exactly, which will leave the ground it hit contaminated for thousands of years and will be to blame for tens of teratogeneses to follow, not count as a 'weapon of mass destruction'?) however, I think your retort in itself is complete bulshit." Yes well, thats what happens when the mind is forced to come to terms with something it would rather not accept: Disbelief. I'm going to take the time to explain to you why it is that DU rounds have been used in every war since Yom Kippur that any country has engaged in. In fact, Israel has used more DU than any other nation, but that is neither here nor there: DU turns out to be a highly effective armor-piercing material as it is 2 times as dense as lead and possesses a singularly unusual property of self-sharpening: as a rod of this material slams into a sheet of steel or a wall of reinforced concrete, instead of mushrooming into a flat, broad projectile that then is slowed or stopped by the obstacle, uranium sheds its exterior layers and becomes sharper as it is propelled by momentum deeper and deeper into its target. Uranium is also highly flammable at the kinds of high temperature generated by a high-velocity collision, and so it incinerates whatever target it hits. . .As well as itself. The DU smart bomb we utilized hits with such tremendous force that it buries itself deeply into the ground. It is more a threat to natural water aquifiers than it is to surface dwelling humans. Is it dangerous? Yes. Did we use it in and about urban environments? Yes. What choice was left to us? As a rule, the US places its bunkers and offensive military commands outside of cities, and generally as far from civilian populations as permissible. We don't hide our tanks and anti-aircraft armourments behind a wall of innocent lives, Sadaam did, and unfortunately his people will pay for his actions. Now, lets take a gander at some relevent facts: Back in '99 in Kosovo such rounds were used in combat, with the sanction of the UN. On 7 February 2000 NATO published their use of some 31K 30mm PGU/14A API rounds. About 16,000 lbs of DU. Israel used it in the Yom Kippur retaliation, the Falklands war and their invasion of South Lebanon. We used less than 2k lbs in this Iraqi war, if you wish to cry over it, I suggest you find someone with more sympathy. "Is there a responsible use for an offensive weapon system?" Is there a such thing a just war? The answer for both questions is the same, but then maybe you're particularly fond of that period in your nations history when Hitler held occupation. "Is it when the other fellow is 'evil'?" Evil is generally accepted as a moral judgement, and relative to one's belief system. You will have to use clearer terms if you wish to keep the tone of this conversation serious. "Especially in a "strike first scenario (of the likes we've witnessed in oh, three US wars in the last 8 years? )" So shall we consider our embassy bombings in Afghanistan prior to war silly teenage 'pranks?' Or the support of Al Qaeda by the Taliban just whimiscal Middle Easten nuttiness? Liberia isn't a war yet, or are you thinking of something else and I'm just not getting it? "Furthermore, is your apparent eagerness to use 'smart' weapons proof of your propensity to not act responsibly?" Yes! We were so eager to use them we invaded Mexico immediately after we developed them! You should have been there Helm, you especially would've enjoyed it. "Does the "number of lives lost per bomb" ratio in an arbitary, unjust and frankly imperialistic war even make an actual difference as far as ethics go?" Christ, I can understand not knowing how a WMD was classified, but imperialism? We are not annexing Iraq, where is the imperialism here? "There's no argument there." Quite right, I haven't found one yet, just some whiny mewling with half assed facts tossed in for colour. "The only country that insofar has not threatened, but actualy used nuclear weapons in a war is the US." As Blanco duly noted, you must know more than either of us. I only know of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. . .Did we deploy nukes in the Mexican War where we eagerly tested our smart bombs? "And I believe that speaks volumes about who is most unfit to wield nuclear weaponry." Sure, but such volumes would only be found in a childrens library. But, if you're lucky, you can influence the next generation and then they can grow up kow towing to Holier-Than-Thou Intellectual European moralists like yourself. "And let's not talk about the cold war and how many times the US has threatened nuclear retaliation. Not a valid argument in itself either, that one." All I can do is hang my head really. Apparantly you missed where we constantly tried to get Russia to disarm, often taking the first step by destroying our nuclear wareheads as an act of good faith. Apparantly you have also missed the nuclear proliferation pact. Furthermore, it has escaped your notive WE NEVER THREATENED TO US THEM. We had no need to, we built them, built the silos, and said that only in the case of a PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE AGAINST OUR NATION would they be utilized. Thats not a threat Helm, and if you can't see the difference between Pakistan saying they use nuclear devices in a war against India if India does not abandon Kasmir, or No Korea feeling econimically or militarily 'threatened' by the US. . .There is no hope for you. "So, bottom line: I do not see any ethical distinction between a dep. uranium smart bomb and a nuclear warhead, and even if there was such, any country's eagerness to resort to using the latter does not in any case make it 'okay' for them to have them." Noone is eager for war, not even Bush. He's eager for another election, and tried to surf the post September 11th popularity with a strike from Afghanistan into Iraq, and now he is trying to clean it up with a peace action in Liberia to dissipate the negative blacklash left after Iraq. You are judging an entire nation based upon a series of bad leadership, since about the late eighties, and I think thats pretty simple. "This is an issue of global interest conflicts, and we both know no country should have to 'trust' the US with being the one to arrange who and why should have nuclear bombs." Of course, noone should trust the nation responsible for the Marshall Plan, or protecting countries like China (which we until Eisenhower in his infinate wisdom move the Seventh Fleet, like an asshole), Korea and Vietnam from insurgant and subversive forces. I'm done with this topic. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 04:44 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| GAsux |
Helm Maybe you could ask Ranxer to help you out with the whole depleted uranium argument. I bet for every substantive qualification you can find that states that each DU round pollutes the earth for eons, I can find some that refute it. That's not to say you are right or wrong, only that you can't concretely prove it either way. I think it would be safe to say that the jury is still out on the DU matter. I'm willing to concede to your point that even the use of "smart" bombs in a military conflict of questionable justification is unethical. Would you be willing to concede that the United States has gone to great lengths to develop munitions that acheive military objectives as relatively painlessly as possible? You could certainly say that 1 death is too many. I would say that 3,000 dead in a conflict involving heavy urban fighting is miraculous. It's a matter of prospectives I suppose. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 04:06 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| The_voice_of_reason |
Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quote:
It's because we're the police of the world. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 03:52 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
And what were these wars we used "first strike"? The latest Iraq war is the only one I can think of. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul 7th, 2003 08:20 AM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Helm |
Okay let's take this from the top. You are making a distinction between weapons of mass destruction (nuclear warheads and anything with a 'significant' (ugh) blast radius ) over 'smart' munitions that can maximise efficiency and minimise error, right? As far I can understand this, any OFFENSIVE military system that has been designed towards aquiring targets outside the radius of the owner's country in question differs from WMD's only in the amount of damage it's designed to inflict. I'm not saying it's a negligible difference, but it doesn't negate the argument. If you have a bomb that can fly from D.C. to Afghanistan, I don't care how many people it will take out, it's still just the same as N.Korea having same weapons. Doesn't give you the right to 'step in' no more than it gives N.Korea the right to do the same. So, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying (to negate my original 'qualm' argument) that 'smart' weapons, yeah, you have no qualms about using, whereas we've yet to emply WMDs in a post WW2 combat situation. And that makes you responsible fellows. I'm not arguing the validity of that claim (although I could and I should, since there's room for further clarification. How does a nepleted uranium bomb exactly, which will leave the ground it hit contaminated for thousands of years and will be to blame for tens of teratogeneses to follow, not count as a 'weapon of mass destruction'?) however, I think your retort in itself is complete bulshit. Quote:
Is there a responsible use for an offensive weapon system? Is it when the other fellow is 'evil'? Especially in a "strike first scenario (of the likes we've witnessed in oh, three US wars in the last 8 years? ) Furthermore, is your apparent eagerness to use 'smart' weapons proof of your propensity to not act responsibly? Does the "number of lives lost per bomb" ratio in an arbitary, unjust and frankly imperialistic war even make an actual difference as far as ethics go? There's no argument there. Quote:
And let's not talk about the cold war and how many times the US has threatened nuclear retaliation. Not a valid argument in itself either, that one. So, bottom line: I do not see any ethical distinction between a dep. uranium smart bomb and a nuclear warhead, and even if there was such, any country's eagerness to resort to using the latter does not in any case make it 'okay' for them to have them. This is an issue of global interest conflicts, and we both know no country should have to 'trust' the US with being the one to arrange who and why should have nuclear bombs. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
