<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 18 2003, 11:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 18 2003, 11:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would have thought that it would be pretty clear that we're talking about modern military forces. It's not in any way applicable to the discussion to be talking about the army of the 1940's. But if you need the clarification, I'll specifically say "the modern US Army, as of roughly 1990 to the present". *
And no, it's absolutely not besides the point. If you run me over with your car because of an accident, that's unintentional vehicular manslaughter. If you chased me down the street in your car then ran me over, that's vehicular homicide. You have to have intent - wars have rules and laws, just like civilian life. Intent and accidents are not the same thing.**
Please show me your sources for leukemia and cancer increases, I'm interested in reading more. while you do that, think about this: wouldn't you expect higher instances of leukimia and cancer in the millions of men in the US armed forces that have sat around in tanks handling that ammunition since it was invented in the mid-80's? And no, they do not wear any special protective gear to handle them, as they are almost completely inert.*** <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> * It wasnt that clear. And still, that does include the second (or first ?) Gulf War. Plus, I would say that Bhutan or the Vatican are better at minimizing victims by avoiding wars.
**Most of the time, civilian casualties are made by accident, unless you are dealing with a really "evil" regime like Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. But I understand that you mean by "minimizing civilian casualties" avoiding to make civilians suffer from a war. That does include unintentional victims, imho.
So now Gulf War Syndrom is being labeled as a side-effect of depleted-uranium munitions? That's a stretch to begin with since Gulf War Syndrome is not even proven to really exist. Gulf War Syndrome, if it even exists, has only seemed to affect about 2% of the soldiers that fought in Iraq... But that page doesn't want to tell you that.
My own links: <a href='http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/du.html' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/du.html</a> <a href='http://www.nato.int/du/home.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.nato.int/du/home.htm</a> <a href='http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/do...99_bt170-99.htm</a>
So the question about these Iraqi cancer victims... and their assumed connection to the use of DU munitions... is whether or not these people decided to use DU munition fragments as lucky charms?!?
Looks to me like there is no official proof that DU causes cancer, and that there is tangential evidence in that we do not have millions of Americans bring cases against the federal government, in the lawsuit capitol of the world. If there was some proof on this, trust me, someone would have sued by now 14 years later. There is certainly a political axe to grind in any case, but I see nothing proving anything here from any source that I find reputable. Can't you locate something from the WTO or AMA or something besides <a href='http://www.xs4all.nl' target='_blank'>http://www.xs4all.nl</a> ? And there is no reputable evidence linking DU to gulf-war syndrome; however, there IS plenty of evidence linking it both to vaccines and (waaaiiit fooorrr iiiit) Iraqi chemical weapons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It wasnt that clear. And still, that does include the second (or first ?) Gulf War. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What part of the second gulf war took place in 1990?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That does include unintentional victims, imho.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There seems to be a disconnect here. Unintentional means unintentional. That's it. Your logic says that you should get life imprisonment for rear-ending someone with your car. If you did not intend to hurt someone, you are still at fault, but it is mitigated by circumstances.
DU does not cause cancer, but it can cause heavy metal poisoning if ingested in large amounts (similar to lead poisoning). This would take a lot more effort to build up than casual contact, and not all of the round is dispersed into the soil this way. DU does neat things when it hits hard objects at high velocity.
Last I heard, Gulf War Syndrome was tied to experimental filter units and/or vaccines distributed because we thought our troops would face chem/bio attacks. It may very well have been that anthrax vaccine that was getting people sick during the recent scare.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 18 2003, 02:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 18 2003, 02:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Looks to me like there is no official proof that DU causes cancer, and that there is tangential evidence in that we do not have millions of Americans bring cases against the federal government, in the lawsuit capitol of the world. If there was some proof on this, trust me, someone would have sued by now 14 years later. There is certainly a political axe to grind in any case, but I see nothing proving anything here from any source that I find reputable. Can't you locate something from the WTO or AMA or something besides <a href='http://www.xs4all.nl' target='_blank'>http://www.xs4all.nl</a> ? And there is no reputable evidence linking DU to gulf-war syndrome; however, there IS plenty of evidence linking it both to vaccines and (waaaiiit fooorrr iiiit) Iraqi chemical weapons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It wasnt that clear. And still, that does include the second (or first ?) Gulf War. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What part of the second gulf war took place in 1990?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That does include unintentional victims, imho.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There seems to be a disconnect here. Unintentional means unintentional. That's it. Your logic says that you should get life imprisonment for rear-ending someone with your car. If you did not intend to hurt someone, you are still at fault, but it is mitigated by circumstances. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1) You were talking about post 1990. Gulfwar took place after 1990.
2) Yes, I do think that killing someone unintentional is just as bad as killing someone intentionally. I'm very utilitairianistic about justice.
3) Those links were crappy, I agree. Well, some other semirelated links then: * on the impact of environment of the 1991 war: <a href='http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/UNEPGCIraq1993.pdf' target='_blank'>http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/U...PGCIraq1993.pdf</a>
* the washington post on the increase of leukemia: <a href='http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/072000/0007029.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washington-report.org/backissue...00/0007029.html</a> (some quotes: There are no exact figures for the number of deaths from leukemia in Iraq. But the World Health Organization (WHO) office in Baghdad does not question the Iraqi Health Ministry’s estimate that since 1990 there has been a fourfold increase in the incidence of the disease. The reality is that there has been no independent confirmation, so far, of a link between DU munitions and leukemia. But anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that it is a possibility.
* iacenter on a link between DU ammo and leukemia among european soldiers: <a href='http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_eur.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_eur.htm</a>
Those reports admit there is no proof. All they do is direct blame with no evidence.
DU poses no radiation hazard so long as you:
a) Wear clothing b) Have skin c) Have a digestive tract
Studies on battlefield effects of DU have been conducted for the past 50 years, by both the DoD and the Department of Health and Human Services. The conclusion was that health effects were minimal, and could be avoided entirely by run-of-the-mill measures. Like....say.... wearing clothes and bathing.
The "danger" zone of exposure occurs when you are either hit with a DU fragment (which most likely kills you anyway) or are in a vehicle that sustains a hit. The measured rem intake of soldiers in this situation, counting rems from ingested material, is less than 1/50th the yearly safe exposure limit. The levels measured in kidney and blood samples were well below the amount for chemical toxicity.
In short, there is no peer-reviewed evidence of any increase in cancer rates in the Gulf beyond the norm. The recent cases from the Balkans are highly unlikely to have been caused by DU because leukemia does not present that quickly. Not even from high doses of radiation, like ingesting natural uranium for instance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1) You were talking about post 1990. Gulfwar took place after 1990.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You seem to be forgetting a little something called the invasion of Kuwait. The war (conflict/police action/whatever) started August 1990. It ended March 3 1991.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2) Yes, I do think that killing someone unintentional is just as bad as killing someone intentionally. I'm very utilitairianistic about justice.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thank goodness you're not a judge. I'd hate to get 50 years for having bad brakes on my car. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Are you sure seeing things so black and white is particularly healthy or fair or objective? Wouldn't you want the concept of intent applied to you if you accidently killed someone?
I have to go with Kheras. There's far too much scientific evidence against DU. But there's also too much practical evidence - why are three of my friends who were Marine tankers not sick with cancer from the thousands of DU rounds they have handled, sat on, lay next to, rode around with? Why are hundreds of thousands of former tankers, bradley crews, LAV gunners, etc. not sick even though they spend far more time with these materials? It doesn't require much science, just a little common sense.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 19 2003, 05:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 19 2003, 05:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have to go with Kheras. There's far too much scientific evidence against DU. But there's also too much practical evidence - why are three of my friends who were Marine tankers not sick with cancer from the thousands of DU rounds they have handled, sat on, lay next to, rode around with? Why are hundreds of thousands of former tankers, bradley crews, LAV gunners, etc. not sick even though they spend far more time with these materials? It doesn't require much science, just a little common sense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because the DU is just the shell's juicy center, covered with other matarials. So if you're handling a non-exploded DU round, you won't even get to touch it. However, when a DU round hits a target, the DU becomes sparkly fairy dust. Also, uranium is a chemical toxin. This means that even if it's 100% depleted, inhaling it is bad.
By the way, did the Iraqi army use DU ammo? Because if they did, and it turns out that DU causes cancer, then you can blame everything on the Iraqis. Problem solved!
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 18 2003, 11:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 18 2003, 11:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You seem to be forgetting a little something called the invasion of Kuwait. The war (conflict/police action/whatever) started August 1990. It ended March 3 1991. *
Thank goodness you're not a judge. I'd hate to get 50 years for having bad brakes on my car. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Are you sure seeing things so black and white is particularly healthy or fair or objective? Wouldn't you want the concept of intent applied to you if you accidently killed someone? **
I have to go with Kheras. There's far too much scientific evidence against DU. But there's also too much practical evidence - why are three of my friends who were Marine tankers not sick with cancer from the thousands of DU rounds they have handled, sat on, lay next to, rode around with? Why are hundreds of thousands of former tankers, bradley crews, LAV gunners, etc. not sick even though they spend far more time with these materials? It doesn't require much science, just a little common sense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *o whatever, nitpicking
** Well, you can check your cars brakes, or have them checked, so it is kind of your responsibility. Btw, judges do not simply give a 50 year sentence to every murderer. Same as with buying oil from companies like Shell, it is, IMHO, cooperating with murder. Buying wood from a company that lacks any responsibilty for the endurance of the rainforest is bad, ( plus the following consequences, like erosion, mudslides, people drowning, whatever. You are still responsible and the cause. Anyway, I'm glad I ain't a judge either <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->.
***So the evidence is that some people did not get sick? That is good to hear, but not really evidence. AFAIK, about a quarter of the troops that fought in the Gulf War were relieved from duty because of health reasons. Noww, imagine people living in Southern Iraq for years ( and probably not wearing clothing and bathing all the time)...
Best independant site sofar: <a href='http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/Documents/DU_report_final_7_6.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/Documents/DU_...t_final_7_6.pdf</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because the DU is just the shell's juicy center, covered with other matarials. So if you're handling a non-exploded DU round, you won't even get to touch it. However, when a DU round hits a target, the DU becomes sparkly fairy dust. Also, uranium is a chemical toxin. This means that even if it's 100% depleted, inhaling it is bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The only way a DU round's interior is exposed is if it hits something hard enough to cause it to shatter the outter sleeve of the penetrator. There simply aren't going to be many things except iraqi tanks which caused such an event. Tank rounds are not fired in large quantities. In 1990-91, DU round were only carried by M1 tanks, not Bradleys and other AFV's. Larger quantities of DU rounds did not start occuring until the recent war. And the whole point of using DU is that it is insanely dense and rather incapable of becoming 'fairy dust' <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way, did the Iraqi army use DU ammo?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope, although if we had not fought them in 1990-91, they would have had the capability to make them a few years later. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*o whatever, nitpicking<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a pretty disapointing response. Not being able to admit a factual mistake is a sign that you're not ready to be discussing in here. I'm all for differing opinions, but this just makes you look petulant.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->** Well, you can check your cars brakes, or have them checked, so it is kind of your responsibility<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So if I'm an old man and driving my car, and become confused and plow into some people on a sidewalk, I should be tried for first degree murder and get the death penalty? By the way, this scenario occurred twice in a week in Chicago in 1998, and of course, the old guys did not get the chair because there was no intent.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->***So the evidence is that some people did not get sick? That is good to hear, but not really evidence. AFAIK, about a quarter of the troops that fought in the Gulf War were relieved from duty because of health reasons. Noww, imagine people living in Southern Iraq for years ( and probably not wearing clothing and bathing all the time)...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, the evidence is that there was not an epidemic of cancer and leukimia cases in all the Desert Storm veterans 13 years later. Or in the all the troops who have been stationed in Kuwait for the past 14 years. Or in all the inhabitants of Kuwait who have lived there in the past 14 years. As for the statement "AFAIK, about a quarter of the troops that fought in the Gulf War were relieved from duty because of health reasons", you just made that little statistic up on the spot. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> ; no such thing ever happened. I served with thousands of Gulf War vets over a 6 year period, and I only ever met one that had Gulf War Syndrome symptoms. And he was an anthrax-vaccine receiver, as well as someone who had spent time around captured iraqi chemical weapons depots. He didn't have cancer, either.
Did no one even read my post?!? <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
I even told you the percentage of soldiers who have been labeled as having "Gulf War Syndrome"!!!
The "study" just compiles the same unsubstantiated statements and makes them look official.
I am unsure why the photograph of DU penetrators collected in Kuwait is placed where it is. It is of an ammo dump so those unfired or dudded rounds were not strewn about the landscape.
It criticizes a DoD report on DU, stating that it did not look at personnel contamination tests. Then later it uses a study that also lacks those tests as evidence of increased cancer rates. Other possible causitive factors seem to have been overlooked as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--Kheras+Dec 20 2003, 05:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kheras @ Dec 20 2003, 05:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And nuclearpolicy.org, being an anti-nuclear site, is entirely objective I'm sure. The "study" just compiles the same unsubstantiated statements and makes them look official. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--FAQ rox0rs meh box0rs+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FAQ rox0rs meh box0rs)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5.: Respect other peoples newssources. It is so tempting. Tell someone that you don't believe the newspaper they cited articles from, and the uncomfortably consistent argumentation they built up falls together, leaving you and your notion secure again. Don't ever try that. Discrediting a newssource requires more than that one article from three years ago that wasn't entirely correct, or an obvious political bias - you'll find few newssites without one. Accept that Leftys will often quote facts found on Salon.org, while Conservatives will cite FOX. <b>Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hoozaa!
/Dreads mod annoying mode off <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
And no, it's absolutely not besides the point. If you run me over with your car because of an accident, that's unintentional vehicular manslaughter. If you chased me down the street in your car then ran me over, that's vehicular homicide. You have to have intent - wars have rules and laws, just like civilian life. Intent and accidents are not the same thing.**
Please show me your sources for leukemia and cancer increases, I'm interested in reading more. while you do that, think about this: wouldn't you expect higher instances of leukimia and cancer in the millions of men in the US armed forces that have sat around in tanks handling that ammunition since it was invented in the mid-80's? And no, they do not wear any special protective gear to handle them, as they are almost completely inert.*** <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
* It wasnt that clear. And still, that does include the second (or first ?) Gulf War. Plus, I would say that Bhutan or the Vatican are better at minimizing victims by avoiding wars.
**Most of the time, civilian casualties are made by accident, unless you are dealing with a really "evil" regime like Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. But I understand that you mean by "minimizing civilian casualties" avoiding to make civilians suffer from a war. That does include unintentional victims, imho.
***
<a href='http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/Iraq-cancer.html' target='_blank'>http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/Iraq-cancer.html</a>
<a href='http://www.mediamonitors.net/north1.html' target='_blank'>http://www.mediamonitors.net/north1.html</a>
<a href='http://www.mothersalert.org/du3.html' target='_blank'>http://www.mothersalert.org/du3.html</a>
<a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0113-01.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0113-01.htm</a>
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2982609.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2982609.stm</a>
<a href='http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/' target='_blank'>http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/</a>
<a href='http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html' target='_blank'>http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html</a>
<a href='http://www1.va.gov/health/environ/persgulf.htm' target='_blank'>http://www1.va.gov/health/environ/persgulf.htm</a>
etcetera etcetera etcetera.
Just start a google search on Iraq cancer 1991, or Iraq leukemia Gulf War, or whatever.
My own links:
<a href='http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/du.html' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/du.html</a>
<a href='http://www.nato.int/du/home.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.nato.int/du/home.htm</a>
<a href='http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/do...99_bt170-99.htm</a>
So the question about these Iraqi cancer victims... and their assumed connection to the use of DU munitions... is whether or not these people decided to use DU munition fragments as lucky charms?!?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It wasnt that clear. And still, that does include the second (or first ?) Gulf War. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What part of the second gulf war took place in 1990?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That does include unintentional victims, imho.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There seems to be a disconnect here. Unintentional means unintentional. That's it. Your logic says that you should get life imprisonment for rear-ending someone with your car. If you did not intend to hurt someone, you are still at fault, but it is mitigated by circumstances.
Last I heard, Gulf War Syndrome was tied to experimental filter units and/or vaccines distributed because we thought our troops would face chem/bio attacks. It may very well have been that anthrax vaccine that was getting people sick during the recent scare.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It wasnt that clear. And still, that does include the second (or first ?) Gulf War. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What part of the second gulf war took place in 1990?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That does include unintentional victims, imho.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There seems to be a disconnect here. Unintentional means unintentional. That's it. Your logic says that you should get life imprisonment for rear-ending someone with your car. If you did not intend to hurt someone, you are still at fault, but it is mitigated by circumstances. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) You were talking about post 1990. Gulfwar took place after 1990.
2) Yes, I do think that killing someone unintentional is just as bad as killing someone intentionally. I'm very utilitairianistic about justice.
3) Those links were crappy, I agree.
Well, some other semirelated links then:
* on the impact of environment of the 1991 war:
<a href='http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/UNEPGCIraq1993.pdf' target='_blank'>http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/U...PGCIraq1993.pdf</a>
* the washington post on the increase of leukemia: <a href='http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/072000/0007029.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washington-report.org/backissue...00/0007029.html</a>
(some quotes:
There are no exact figures for the number of deaths from leukemia in Iraq. But the World Health Organization (WHO) office in Baghdad does not question the Iraqi Health Ministry’s estimate that since 1990 there has been a fourfold increase in the incidence of the disease.
The reality is that there has been no independent confirmation, so far, of a link between DU munitions and leukemia. But anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that it is a possibility.
* iacenter on a link between DU ammo and leukemia among european soldiers: <a href='http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_eur.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_eur.htm</a>
* <a href='http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/NewsArticle.cfm?NewsID=577' target='_blank'>http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/NewsArticle.c....cfm?NewsID=577</a>
*http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1106672,00.html
*http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml
DU poses no radiation hazard so long as you:
a) Wear clothing
b) Have skin
c) Have a digestive tract
Studies on battlefield effects of DU have been conducted for the past 50 years, by both the DoD and the Department of Health and Human Services. The conclusion was that health effects were minimal, and could be avoided entirely by run-of-the-mill measures. Like....say.... wearing clothes and bathing.
The "danger" zone of exposure occurs when you are either hit with a DU fragment (which most likely kills you anyway) or are in a vehicle that sustains a hit. The measured rem intake of soldiers in this situation, counting rems from ingested material, is less than 1/50th the yearly safe exposure limit. The levels measured in kidney and blood samples were well below the amount for chemical toxicity.
<a href='http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs150.html' target='_blank'>Uranium Toxicity Study</a>
In short, there is no peer-reviewed evidence of any increase in cancer rates in the Gulf beyond the norm. The recent cases from the Balkans are highly unlikely to have been caused by DU because leukemia does not present that quickly. Not even from high doses of radiation, like ingesting natural uranium for instance.
You seem to be forgetting a little something called the invasion of Kuwait. The war (conflict/police action/whatever) started August 1990. It ended March 3 1991.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2) Yes, I do think that killing someone unintentional is just as bad as killing someone intentionally. I'm very utilitairianistic about justice.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank goodness you're not a judge. I'd hate to get 50 years for having bad brakes on my car. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Are you sure seeing things so black and white is particularly healthy or fair or objective? Wouldn't you want the concept of intent applied to you if you accidently killed someone?
I have to go with Kheras. There's far too much scientific evidence against DU. But there's also too much practical evidence - why are three of my friends who were Marine tankers not sick with cancer from the thousands of DU rounds they have handled, sat on, lay next to, rode around with? Why are hundreds of thousands of former tankers, bradley crews, LAV gunners, etc. not sick even though they spend far more time with these materials? It doesn't require much science, just a little common sense.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because the DU is just the shell's juicy center, covered with other matarials.
So if you're handling a non-exploded DU round, you won't even get to touch it.
However, when a DU round hits a target, the DU becomes sparkly fairy dust.
Also, uranium is a chemical toxin. This means that even if it's 100% depleted, inhaling it is bad.
By the way, did the Iraqi army use DU ammo?
Because if they did, and it turns out that DU causes cancer, then you can blame everything on the Iraqis. Problem solved!
Thank goodness you're not a judge. I'd hate to get 50 years for having bad brakes on my car. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Are you sure seeing things so black and white is particularly healthy or fair or objective? Wouldn't you want the concept of intent applied to you if you accidently killed someone? **
I have to go with Kheras. There's far too much scientific evidence against DU. But there's also too much practical evidence - why are three of my friends who were Marine tankers not sick with cancer from the thousands of DU rounds they have handled, sat on, lay next to, rode around with? Why are hundreds of thousands of former tankers, bradley crews, LAV gunners, etc. not sick even though they spend far more time with these materials? It doesn't require much science, just a little common sense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*o whatever, nitpicking
** Well, you can check your cars brakes, or have them checked, so it is kind of your responsibility. Btw, judges do not simply give a 50 year sentence to every murderer. Same as with buying oil from companies like Shell, it is, IMHO, cooperating with murder. Buying wood from a company that lacks any responsibilty for the endurance of the rainforest is bad, ( plus the following consequences, like erosion, mudslides, people drowning, whatever. You are still responsible and the cause. Anyway, I'm glad I ain't a judge either <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->.
***So the evidence is that some people did not get sick? That is good to hear, but not really evidence. AFAIK, about a quarter of the troops that fought in the Gulf War were relieved from duty because of health reasons. Noww, imagine people living in Southern Iraq for years ( and probably not wearing clothing and bathing all the time)...
Best independant site sofar: <a href='http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/Documents/DU_report_final_7_6.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/Documents/DU_...t_final_7_6.pdf</a>
So if you're handling a non-exploded DU round, you won't even get to touch it.
However, when a DU round hits a target, the DU becomes sparkly fairy dust.
Also, uranium is a chemical toxin. This means that even if it's 100% depleted, inhaling it is bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only way a DU round's interior is exposed is if it hits something hard enough to cause it to shatter the outter sleeve of the penetrator. There simply aren't going to be many things except iraqi tanks which caused such an event. Tank rounds are not fired in large quantities. In 1990-91, DU round were only carried by M1 tanks, not Bradleys and other AFV's. Larger quantities of DU rounds did not start occuring until the recent war. And the whole point of using DU is that it is insanely dense and rather incapable of becoming 'fairy dust' <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way, did the Iraqi army use DU ammo?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, although if we had not fought them in 1990-91, they would have had the capability to make them a few years later. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*o whatever, nitpicking<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a pretty disapointing response. Not being able to admit a factual mistake is a sign that you're not ready to be discussing in here. I'm all for differing opinions, but this just makes you look petulant.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->** Well, you can check your cars brakes, or have them checked, so it is kind of your responsibility<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So if I'm an old man and driving my car, and become confused and plow into some people on a sidewalk, I should be tried for first degree murder and get the death penalty? By the way, this scenario occurred twice in a week in Chicago in 1998, and of course, the old guys did not get the chair because there was no intent.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->***So the evidence is that some people did not get sick? That is good to hear, but not really evidence. AFAIK, about a quarter of the troops that fought in the Gulf War were relieved from duty because of health reasons. Noww, imagine people living in Southern Iraq for years ( and probably not wearing clothing and bathing all the time)...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the evidence is that there was not an epidemic of cancer and leukimia cases in all the Desert Storm veterans 13 years later. Or in the all the troops who have been stationed in Kuwait for the past 14 years. Or in all the inhabitants of Kuwait who have lived there in the past 14 years. As for the statement "AFAIK, about a quarter of the troops that fought in the Gulf War were relieved from duty because of health reasons", you just made that little statistic up on the spot. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> ; no such thing ever happened. I served with thousands of Gulf War vets over a 6 year period, and I only ever met one that had Gulf War Syndrome symptoms. And he was an anthrax-vaccine receiver, as well as someone who had spent time around captured iraqi chemical weapons depots. He didn't have cancer, either.
I even told you the percentage of soldiers who have been labeled as having "Gulf War Syndrome"!!!
BAH I say! BAH!
I am unsure why the photograph of DU penetrators collected in Kuwait is placed where it is. It is of an ammo dump so those unfired or dudded rounds were not strewn about the landscape.
It criticizes a DoD report on DU, stating that it did not look at personnel contamination tests. Then later it uses a study that also lacks those tests as evidence of increased cancer rates. Other possible causitive factors seem to have been overlooked as well.
Fixed. kekethx~
<!--QuoteBegin--FAQ rox0rs meh box0rs+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FAQ rox0rs meh box0rs)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5.: Respect other peoples newssources.
It is so tempting. Tell someone that you don't believe the newspaper they cited articles from, and the uncomfortably consistent argumentation they built up falls together, leaving you and your notion secure again.
Don't ever try that.
Discrediting a newssource requires more than that one article from three years ago that wasn't entirely correct, or an obvious political bias - you'll find few newssites without one. Accept that Leftys will often quote facts found on Salon.org, while Conservatives will cite FOX. <b>Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hoozaa!
/Dreads mod annoying mode off <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->