Weapons of Mass Destruction

[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 :/

[GAsux]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[El Blanco]

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.

Wow, you are completly lost in your own little world, aren't you?

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.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

:-\ Should everybody stop going outside into the sun then? We put our troops in danger of skin cancer everyday!
.

If you honestly would equate DU with UV rays, then you are an idiot.

[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 =)

[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?"

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."

I do not claim any different. I made the 'qualm' error, you called me on it and I moved on to discuss what exactly the moral difference between using more conventional munitions over WMDs is. So far I see no reason for you to resort to this petty patronizing.


"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.

How nice and sarcastic of you. Elaborate.

"I'm not saying it's a negligible difference, but it doesn't negate the argument."

I'm afraid it does.

How? Why? Elaborate on this profoundly detailed rebuttal of yours.

It isn't about possession, its about use.

You're saying it's okay for whatever country to have WMDs, as long as they do not use them?

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.

Yes I do remember. How does this further your argument?

"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.

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.

"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.

[...]

to surface dwelling humans. Is it dangerous? Yes. Did we use it in and about urban environments? Yes. What choice was left to us?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Yes. I do not support the descision of the UN either in this case, if that's what you're suggesting.

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.

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'?

"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.

No, there is no such thing as a just war. But surely you agree that a defensive war and an offensive one are not the same thing. To make any relation between your recent bombing of Iraq, and the Greek situation in world war 2 is simply gross to the point to which I am not prepared to comment further. To equate my great grandfather's service in the war with killing children and bombing TV reporters is taking it a bit too far.

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.

Inept. It is exactly because your administration has used such childish terminology in the past that I mention it. And you try to turn it over? You think I don't know that a moral judgement is? You should really know better.

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.

"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?

Serbia. As to embassy bombings, would you provide me with some more information? Also you know better than to make a 9/11 connection with the Taliban. There has been so far no hard evidence to suggest that the terrorists that drove them planes into the WTC towers were Taliban agents.

As to Liberia, it will be a nice little 'peaceful mediation' will it not?

"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.

Wouldn't you call the deployment of smart bombs in your recent wars as 'eager'? After all, weapon manufactures have to eat too, don't they?

"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?

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?

"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.

Well, do I have to tell you what I think about the hard evidence you've provided?

"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?

Naturally I was talking about said two cases.

"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.

Sophomoric wordplay and ad hominems abound. Is more of this what I should be looking forward to?

"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.

"Our policy historically has been generally that we will not foreclose the possible use of nuclear weapons if attacked," - Donald Duck

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?

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.

No, I'm judging the current (and to some extent the one before it) administration. I'm not judging the entire nation. I agree that would be base, so I'm not doing it. Where is it even suggested that I am?

"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.

Well yes, fundamentally that's true. No nation should explicitly trust any other with anything as long as there's strong conflict of interest. Diplomacy isn't about love and tenderness, It's about mutual compromise. Just a week before the UN has gone on the record with stating that "we do not agree with you, but we will back you up", rendering itself completely obsolete as far as it being a vessel of political manouvering goes. I'm sure you think that's a good thing.


As to you being done with this topic, whatever. I hoped for less asininity and more constructive discussion, but hey, suit yourself.

[Zhukov]

What a coincidence ranxer! I bought that book yesterday!

Although my copy has an apache on the cover.

[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.