Why war with Iraq is necessary...

[patrick_dont_fret]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only a small part of why Japan surrendered. It didn't end WW2. There was still Germany to take care of.

[sign]

Patrick, now that you mention Germany. Have you ever seen pictures of Berlin in summer 1945? Can you imagine the reluctance of the Germans?

[miroslav]

[quote]Originally posted by patrick_dont_fret: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only a small part of why Japan surrendered. It didn't end WW2. There was still Germany to take care of.[/quote]Patrick...when the USA hit Japan with the A-bombs...Germany was already finished...not the other way around. Germany surrendered officially on May 7 & 8 1945…We dropped the first A-bomb in August of 1945. The Japanese were holding out for over 3 months...refusing to stop fighting, and they were killing 1000's of Americans in the Pacific. After the first bomb dropped...they STILL refused to surrender...so then we dropped the second one. Also…let's not flip things around now so that we paint the USA as the aggressor of WW2... …some of people really are having a problem with reality.

[jlahib.no]

and then there was the punishment bombing killing 30.000 germans.. and then germany wasnt allowed to have any army and had to put in their constitution that they are evil and bad, and now.. they are chickens for not wanting to join in a new war :thu:

[NOT Bolt Rifles]

[img]http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/weekend_sites/week_in_review_021003___021403/content/axis_of_appeasement_actions.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg[/img]

[realtrance]

Why war with Iraq is necessary: 1. Because someone broke our nose and then disappeared, and we just wanna punch someone in return. 2. Because we're bored. 3. Because our economy sucks. 4. Because our current administration sucks, and doesn't want people to start thinking about that. 5. Because America has always needed a scapegoat to keep from spinning into a million little arguing, fighting pieces (hey, just look here for proof of that!), and we'd rather the scapegoat were "out there" instead of "in here" -- though there's real concern some of the paranoid oogies running things these days want it both ways, and want a war _and_ a witch-hunt. Spoiled, spoiled, spoiled, I say! You can't have it all, how many times must we tell you that! Pride goeth before the fall, where's the beef, really, get that monkey off your back without getting US into trouble, etc. etc. 6. Because there's a new generation of weapons the US has been developing that hasn't really gotten the field-testing they need yet (the Gulf War could be aka'd "the AH-64 and Abrams M1 Test"). 7. Because the volunteer army's tired of sitting around, under-funded and under-appreciated, and wants a reason to grow. 8. Because it's getting harder and harder for Hollywood to find the hardware to do yet another WWII movie. 9. Because Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon need the business (they're both hiring like crazy, btw). 10. Because the current administration wants to privatize most of the military and give it to the two companies mentioned in no. 9. 11. Because the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) approval means we need _another_ war about ten years down the line, to justify that technology when it finalizes, so we better start one now so we can a) have something for the JSF field test when it's finished, and b) finish the current war in time to use up old inventory and then start building up fresh inventory for the next one. 12. Because starting a war in the middle-east is the best opportunity to guarantee a series of military conflicts for the next fifteen years, thus sustaining the business opportunities described in 9. and 10. above. Beyond that, I really don't see the point. rt

[miroslav]

realtrance... Though you post some "interesting" reasons... ...most all of them are cliche arguments that people use when they have no real proof. If heard most of them time and time again…but no one ever backs them up with facts…only fiction and fantasy. Those are the kind of viewponts you can only get from watching too many Hollywood movies about conspiracy theories...and those of the action adventure genre. I love watching that stuff too…but it's only entertainment….not reality. Tom Clancy would be proud! :p

[jlahib.no]

because the real reason is that you care about the people of iraq and want to liberate them.

[ha ha faa_Q]

The issue of Iraq´s failure to comply with UN resolutions is a UN problem, not a U.S. problem. If the U.S. doesn´t have the support of other UN countries, NO war should be initiated. Americans are planning to start a war with Iraq because it can be "won" very easily. If The U.S. were in the same position with North Korea, they wouldn´t be so trigger-happy, considering that North Korea can do a sizeable amount of collateral damage. Besides, a war in Iraq will solve nothing. Saddam will live and continue to rule. If the world´s largest army failed to change things when it had the support of other countries during Desert Storm, why would anyone think that Americans can get the job done now? -- Jimmy

[jlahib.no]

how about when they did comply with Resolution 660. Who would be tempted to follow a resolution again after that (what is called "the highway of death")

[Mats Olsson.]

Why the hell not give it a try? The war on drugs was won (sic!). Hunting down Osama and Al-Queda was a total success. Terrorism is a much smaller problem now. (Yeah, right). I can't see how this show could go wrong! It will be the war to end all wars and WMD threats for good. The clever crew organizing this campaign are on top of everything. When they are done there will be no tensions in the area and no people will have to live under opression and injustice. /Mats

[rumpelstiltskin.]

i will say first that we have no reason to have such a strong presence in any region other than the United State of America. we shouldn't have any more than a diplomatic presence in the middle east. it was Thomas Jefferson who warned us to eschew "entangling alliances". our alliance with Israel is a major reason for our involvement in middle eastern politics (oil is another, but if it were purely economic, i'll bet we'd be friendlier). because of this, middle eastern [b]instability[/b] is a threat to US security and US interests. in that light, war in Iraq is necessary in that Saddam Hussein represents a destablizing force in the region. and as long as our future includes retaining our presence in the region, it behooves us to maintain stability there. as long as we continue to assert our role in their regional affairs, we will continue to be the target of their animosity. war is a proactive means of stifling violent action as a result of that animosity. war will likely debilitate anti-US sentiment and factions enough to reduce their threat to a more "manageable" level. with even a neutral-to-the-US Iraqi regime, a great deal of support for the anti-US ideology will disappear. of course, as long as we remain so active in the region, we are bound to see this problem arise again. but for the stated reasons by the Bush administration, i agree that this war solves more problems than it creates in the short term. however, i think we should look seriously at our foreign policy as advanced by Bush, Clinton and the rest of our presidents of the last century. is it any wonder that we are the targets of terrorists, religious fundamentalists (domestic and abroad), and the general ire of the world, when the US has engaged in more wars and conflicts than any other nation in the last fifty years? how have we truly represented religious, economic, and ideological freedom? what can we do the get it right? robb.

[right on]

any country that beats their women in the street and don't allow them to show their faces need to be destroyed, FUCK ALL CONTROLLERS DIE!!!!!!!

[Gtoledo3]

[quote]Originally posted by right on: [b]any country that beats their women in the street and don't allow them to show their faces need to be destroyed, FUCK ALL CONTROLLERS DIE!!!!!!![/b][/quote]Hey, we beat our people in the streets, and we encourage women to not show their true faces. I guess it's a fine line, huh?

[rdpete]

[quote]Originally posted by GT3: [b][QUOTE]Hey, we beat our people in the streets, and we encourage women to not show their true faces. I guess it's a fine line, huh?[/b][/quote]GT3, that's going a little far, don't ya think? Not sure about where you are living at, but where I live, women go to school, are teachers, business owners, hold publicly elected positions... not a burqa in site; they show their faces and let you know who they are right away. Beatings 'here' are a crime, not punishment. If there is place where women are held back, it's in the entertainment industry... ironic since it's suppose to be liberal?

[Gtoledo3]

[quote]Originally posted by rdpete: [b] [quote]Originally posted by GT3: [b][QUOTE]Hey, we beat our people in the streets, and we encourage women to not show their true faces. I guess it's a fine line, huh?[/b][/quote]GT3, that's going a little far, don't ya think? Not sure about where you are living at, but where I live, women go to school, are teachers, business owners, hold publicly elected positions... not a burqa in site; they show their faces and let you know who they are right away. Beatings 'here' are a crime, not punishment. If there is place where women are held back, it's in the entertainment industry... ironic since it's suppose to be liberal?[/b][/quote]I'm just pointing out that things around the world aren't really as diferrent from nation to nation as we like to think. Here we have moved our abuse into forms that you cannot "see." That doesn't make it any less insidious. I'm not saying it's not a little better on the individual level, but it undermines our society just as seriously.

[rdpete]

yeah.. human nature can be both beautiful and cruel, some more of one than the other.

[Raymar]

We've done more damage to Iraq than Saddam could ever dream of. We've bombed roads, water supplies, dropped bombs with [url=http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_colloneng.htm]depleted uranium[/url] that's responsible for giving them cancer and lukemia. Going in and bombing Bahgdad will kill even more people and do more long term damage to them. We're supposed to be a republic not an empire starting pre-emptive wars and doing regime changes.

[BlueSky]

[quote]Originally posted by Raymar: [b]We've done more damage to Iraq than Saddam could ever dream of. We've bombed roads, water supplies, dropped bombs with depleted uranium that's responsible for giving them cancer and lukemia. Going in and bombing Bahgdad will kill even more people and do more long term damage to them. We're supposed to be a republic not an empire starting pre-emptive wars and doing regime changes.[/b][/quote]With regard to dropping bombs on IRAQ with depleted uranium, this is a little misleading. The US and most NATO nations use shells, penetrators and kinetic kill projectiles made out of Depleted Uranium (DU) because it is very heavy / dense and helps penetrate tank armor. DU munitions are typically fired by anti armor guns, such as those on tanks and tank killing helicopters or planes. They are typically are not mated with any explosives and inflict damage by kinetic energy alone. http://www.howstuffworks.com/m1-tank3.htm There has been a huge controversy about DU munitions, but from the many independent studies I have seen, no direct like between DU and cancer has ever been made. The IRAQI's and some others have stated it as a fact that there is a link, but most independent studies have concluded that the numbers are exaggerated and manipulated for propaganda purposes. This doesn't mean that there are no dangers, but they may be negligible compared to the many other radiation sources people are exposed to. There is some good information about this on the NATO website http://www.nato.int/du/docu/d000500e.htm As with issues like this, there is always contradictory information available and more studies are being done. I would however caution people from repeating IRAQI claims as fact, because they certainly have not been proven. Just trying to inform...

[right on]

Sadom must die! I miss-spelled his name on purpose That sonofabitch gassed all of his "OWN" people over there too....... fuck that piece of shit, he stands for weak pieces of shit that fly jets into buildings, and that kill innocent men women and children....fuck all terrorist, they all will die! The weakest in all chains DIE! PURE COWARDS! FUCK THEM, AND FUCK ANYONE WHO STANDS UP FOR THEM!!!!

[Salyphus]

[url=http://www.txexecutions.org/stats.asp]Why war with Texas is necessary...[/url] http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm [quote] In answer to questions about that record, Governor Bush has repeatedly said that he has no qualms. "I'm confident," he said last February, "that every person that has been put to death in Texas under my watch has been guilty of the crime charged, and has had full access to the courts." [/quote]I'm sure Saddam would say the same thing :rolleyes:

[DanYmaL X]

[quote]Originally posted by right on: [b]Sadom must die! I miss-spelled his name on purpose That sonofabitch gassed all of his "OWN" people over there too....... fuck that piece of shit, he stands for weak pieces of shit that fly jets into buildings, and that kill innocent men women and children....fuck all terrorist, they all will die! The weakest in all chains DIE! PURE COWARDS! FUCK THEM, AND FUCK ANYONE WHO STANDS UP FOR THEM!!!![/b][/quote]Anyone see a link between this guy and the attitudes of all those folks overseas who think americans are assholes? 'right on'... please calm down, you are not helping anything by your outbursts. DX

[johnnie red]

[quote] BlueSky wrote: [b]With regard to dropping bombs on IRAQ with depleted uranium, this is a little misleading.[/b] [/quote]I have to disagree. While the "benefits" of DU bombs you mention are correct, I really think they are irrelevant, and are in fact what are misleading. The fact is, there is [i]overwhelming[/i] evidence that use of these bombs increases rates of cancer and lukemia and lead to a significant number of other side-effects. EVERYWHERE DU bombs have been used, whether for weapons tests or during war, there have been drastic increases in these problems. As well, the potential problems of using depleted uranium have been well known by the US, long before DU bombs were used in the first Gulf War. The fact that depleted uranium has a half-life of billions of years means this will remain a problem for a long time whereever it's been used. The US has mentioned the possibility of using "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons in the coming war. These wouldn't be of the scale used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they would turn Iraq into a radioactive wasteland, and would result in massive civilian casualties (as well as among soldiers fighting on both sides). The justification for using such a weapon would be similar to the justification you used for depleted-uranium - they're more effective in penetrating bunkers. So, some of the evidence against depleted uranium... A pentagon report in 1974 concluded this: "In combat situations involving the widespread use of DU munitions, the potential for inhalation, ingestion, or implantation of DU compounds may be locally significant." Another report issued by a company under contract with the US military declared that because DU emits radiation, it could be "linked to cancer when exposures are internal... Aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant, with potential radiological and toxicological effects." So their own reports have shown potential dangers. But even more, EVERYWHERE they've been used have produced complications. Iraqis have seen increases in cancer, leukemia, pulmonary and bone diseases. US veterans of the Gulf War on a massive scale have complained about complications. Traces of uranium have been found in thousands of veterans since the war, whether in their blood, urine or semen. There are in fact many wives of veterans who are now exposed to uranium through the semen of their husbands. British veterans have experience similar problems. Veterans of NATO's war on Serbia also have complained about complications. The rates of cancer and leukemia in Serbia have increased significantly. The rates of cancer and leukemia in Vieques, Puerto Rico, where DU bombs have been dropped for testing, have increased notably. Similar problems have been found from the testing of DU bombs at the Fallon Naval Air Station in Nevada. The US performed a partial cleanup of depleted uranium fragments in Kuwait afterwards. The health physicist who oversaw the cleanup is now sick, his body registering 5000 times the level of radiation considered "safe." He told a British journalist, "There can be no reasonable doubt about this. As a result of heavy metal and radiological poison of DU, people in southern Iraq are experiencing respiratory problems, kidney problems, cancers. Members of my own team have died or are dying from cancer." Kofi Annan has declared the problem of DU a “humanitarian crisis.” I think he's right. I can only hope it's never used again, and those responsible for its use will come to terms with the disaster they've created. :)

[Michael Quayle]

Following quote taken from http://www.scrapbookpages.com/EasternGermany/Sachsenhausen/introduction.html "While America and the rest of Europe were still in the depths of the depression caused by the stock market crash in October 1929, Germany had stabilized its economy and had virtually eliminated unemployment. Unlike the other countries in Europe in 1936, Nazi Germany was doing well, thanks in part to American investment capital. Many American businessmen, led by auto maker Henry Ford, supported Hitler and his Fascist form of government. Other prominent Americans who supported Hitler included Joseph P. Kennedy (the father of President John F. Kennedy), and Prescott Bush (the grandfather of President George W. Bush)." From http://www.artistsnetwork.org/news3/news150.html "Substitute Bush for Hitler, substitute Moslems for Jews, substitute detainment camp (or occupied territories) for concentration camp, remind yourself that the actual word that our illegally unelected president used in his first public speech after 9/11 was "crusade," then check your history books and recall that Bush's grandfather Prescott (an infamous anti-Semite) made quite a bit of the family money by bonding the shipping lines that supplied early Nazi Germany with the steel it needed to pursue World War Two (with his Nazi sympathizer buddy Averill Harriman and the Morgan bank ) and you've got the ingredients for World War Three. " And just to labour the point, from http://www.baltech.org/lederman/913chase.html "The Manhattan Institute is also the originator of G.W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism". Bush, who has presided over more executions than all other U.S. Governors combined, claims that next to the bible Chase Bank's Manhattan Institute has been the greatest influence on his ideas. G.W. Bush's father, George Bush, was a Rockefeller puppet according to Ronald Reagan and had numerous former Nazis involved in his presidential campaign. G.W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, managed Wall Street front companies that raised money for Hitler and shipped supplies to the Nazis. These companies were seized by the U.S. government in 1942 under the Trading With the Enemy act." This is the pedigree of leadership that is fighting to defend the 'Free World'. Coming from the same stock of morally fibrous leaders who installed such upstanding individuals as Pinochet, Saddam, and, yes Osama Bin Laden into power in the first place. I don't wish to attack the Amercian people in any way, so I would like to make the distinction right now between the Amercian people and the American government. The Amercian government is a self serving machine with ZERO regard for life, and every regard for the protection of it's interests, whatever they may be. I cannot say for certain what the plan is with this 'crusade' against the middle east, but I would suggest that if we view this incident in isolation, we will not see the relevance of it as a tactical move, any more than we would be able to ascertain the gameplan of someone after seeing them move one chess piece. The only thing that I know for certain ,as a living, breathing, thinking, and FEELING human being, is that this whole notion of taking life to protect life is the most bastardised version of logic I have ever come face to face with. I would make a plea to those citizens of the US who have not already been consumed completely by the propaganda machine to try to take a look at the world through non CNN - tinted spectacles, to question the motives of those who claim to be acting on behalf of YOUR best interests, who will kill in your name and claim it to be an act of peace. We in Britain are facing similar ordeals with our leadership, but as the marches on 15th Feb showed, we are not all fooled by their smoke and mirror tactics to garner support for an unjust war. You have two choices in life. You can live your life by love or you can live your life by fear. It's as simple as that. The media and the government work relentlessly to bombard us with stimuli that practically ensure you live your life in a constant state of fear. A demand for action in the middle east now is little more than a cry for protection to those very same people that engineered this whole situation decades ago - OUR presidents and prime ministers. This is our world and this is our legacy to our children, our actions today will carve out their lives tomorrow. You do not fight for peace. You peace for peace. There is such a thing as a collective conscious. This is no hippy-dippy air-headed little notion that some left wing fool concocted, this is a human reality. When we enter an environment we tap into the collective consiousness of that environment, and over time this can alter our thoughts and our feelings. If you don't believe this think of a time when you maybe had your view changed on something because of the reactions of those around you - maybe you saw a comedian you previously didn't think was all that funny until the laughter of those around you started to infiltrate you and eventually you found yourself quietly chuckling away. It is my belief that the people of the US and Great Britain, and to a lesser extent, those of other western countries, are being manipulated into a state where there is an air of fear and panic that pervades this collective consciousness - the fear that will condone almost any act, regardless of how heinous, in order to maintain the status quo and keep the percieved peace. We have already seen on this very thread the justification of using atomic weapons on the Japanese. That was an INSANE thing to do, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, in non military targets. Can you imagine ANYBODY defending such an act under normal circumstances? This is a reaction to the FEAR that you are being bombarded with on a daily basis. I implore you to rise above it and look upon it as the agent of CONTROL that it really is. I realise I have gone on a bit here, but this is important. It is imperitive in these times that ALL people of the world maintain a sense of solidarity, do not fall prey to their ploys to keep us factionalised - like it or not we are one people. This isn't the rant of some crapped out old hippy, but of a sober, sane, balanced human individual. I encourage you all you do whatever you can to reinforce your individuality at these times and not to give in to the temptation to 'follow the herd' in the support of this insane act of barbarism. Peace, Michael.

[Philip OKeefe]

[quote]Originally posted by sign: [b] [quote]Originally posted by CarmenC: and ended WWII...[/quote]That's true, certainly for the 210.000 civillians.[/b][/quote]Estimates done at the time suggested over ONE MILLION American casualties and countles more Japanese losses if an invasion of Japan had been undertaken. Considering those figures, the actual losses inflicted by the use of the two atomic bombs in Japan seem the lesser of the two evils. IMO, Truman made the correct decision. Had the existence of the atomic bomb become public knowledge, and he HADN'T used it, but opted for the invasion instead, then he would have been impeached.

[Philip OKeefe]

[quote]Originally posted by patrick_dont_fret: [b]Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only a small part of why Japan surrendered. It didn't end WW2. There was still Germany to take care of.[/b][/quote]Uh, please re-read whatever history book you got this from. Germany was "priority one" in WWII. The war in Europe was over by May of 1945 when Germany capitulated, and the war in Japan wasn't over until September 1, 1945 when Japan signed the surrender documents on the USS Missouri which was at anchor in Tokyo bay.

[Philip OKeefe]

[quote]Originally posted by Jimmy Foster: [b]The issue of Iraq´s failure to comply with UN resolutions is a UN problem, not a U.S. problem. If the U.S. doesn´t have the support of other UN countries, NO war should be initiated.[/b] True. But it is also true that after the Gulf War, Iraq signed documents that state that they will dismantle / distroy all WMD's as a condition of the CEASE FIRE. There was never a peace treaty following the Gulf War, and we reserved the right to resume hostilities for non-compliance. [b]Americans are planning to start a war with Iraq because it can be "won" very easily. If The U.S. were in the same position with North Korea, they wouldn´t be so trigger-happy, considering that North Korea can do a sizeable amount of collateral damage.[/b] War is always dangerous, and Iraq, while probably an "easier" opponent, can still inflict considerable damage if we screw up. So can the DPRK. They probably DO have a couple of nuclear weapons, and that's going to make things a bit trickier, but one way or another, they will be dealt with as well if they don't get it together... probably not that long after we finish with Iraq. [b]Besides, a war in Iraq will solve nothing. Saddam will live and continue to rule.[/b] Not this time. [b]If the world´s largest army failed to change things when it had the support of other countries during Desert Storm, why would anyone think that Americans can get the job done now?[/b] This has been the source of much debate since the last Gulf War. We could have gone on to Baghdad with no problems whatsoever from a military standpoint, and many people think we should have. Obviously, we didn't, but that wasn't because we didn't have the ability. The primary reasons were that the objectives were to 1) liberate Kuwait and 2) reduce the effectiveness of the Iraqi army so they would pose less of a threat to neighboring countries in the future. WE ACCOMPLISHED THOSE MISSIONS, but Saddam has failed to live up to his agreements that were signed at the end of hostilities in terms of distroying his WMD's and curtailing future development of said weapons. Legally, that's all the justification we need to resume hostilities with Iraq, but UN support would be nice to have. OTOH, if a country poses a risk to the US, then IMO, we have the right to deal with that country, irragardless of UN opinion. Complete elimination of Iraq's army wasn't called for, and was argued aganst by some of our Coalition partners - the Saudis wanted some sort of Iraqi capabilities to remain in place as a foil to potential Iranian expansionism. And had we marched on Baghdad, that coalition would have splintered. That's why it wasn't done... not because we lacked the ability. [/quote]

[johnnie red]

[quote] BlueSky wrote: [b]First of all, they are not bombs. We are not going around dumping DU all over the place, that was one of my points. They are used as kinetic kill weapons and DU has nothing even remotely to do with Nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons or nuclear bunker bombs. In fact DU is very common and used in everything from airplanes as ballast to shielding canisters for transporting radioactive material.[/b] [/quote]Bombs, bullets and missiles during the Gulf War and NATO's war were laced or encased by depleted uranium. The Department of Defense has stated that 315 tons of depleted uranium were spent during the Gulf War. While DU have a different purpose from nuclear weapons, they are still radioactive (unlike lead and mercury which you compare DU to) and involve their own risks in use. The point I'm trying to make is whatever their purpose is, their dangers should be the primary issue. [quote] BlueSky: [b]Additionally, just because some may see a link, it has been impossible to prove and the science doesn't seem to support it. Just because others repeat the same claims doesn't make it true. Finally, DU, while no longer being manufactured will still be used in munitions.[/b] [/quote]Well these "others" happen to include tens of thousands of gulf war veterans. I'm not going to provide you with any conclusive evidence that there's a link between DU use and health problems, but the fact remains that health problems follow DU whereever it's used. These health problems are very consistent with those who are overexposed to radiation. Really, it's not that hard to report something is inconclusive. The fact that the testing of soldiers' or civilian exposure to DU during the Gulf War was virtually nonexistant is enough alone to prove it inconclusive. As far as I know, these reports have also failed to extensively test veterans for levels of radiation. On the other hand, there are a large number of veterans and their doctors who now claim they have tested positively for excessive amounts of radiation. Who is one to believe?

[BlueSky]

[quote]Originally posted by johnnie red: [b] [quote] BlueSky wrote: [b]First of all, they are not bombs. We are not going around dumping DU all over the place, that was one of my points. They are used as kinetic kill weapons and DU has nothing even remotely to do with Nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons or nuclear bunker bombs. In fact DU is very common and used in everything from airplanes as ballast to shielding canisters for transporting radioactive material.[/b] [/quote]Bombs, bullets and missiles during the Gulf War and NATO's war were laced or encased by depleted uranium. The Department of Defense has stated that 315 tons of depleted uranium were spent during the Gulf War. While DU have a different purpose from nuclear weapons, they are still radioactive (unlike lead and mercury which you compare DU to) and involve their own risks in use. The point I'm trying to make is whatever their purpose is, their dangers should be the primary issue. [quote] BlueSky: [b]Additionally, just because some may see a link, it has been impossible to prove and the science doesn't seem to support it. Just because others repeat the same claims doesn't make it true. Finally, DU, while no longer being manufactured will still be used in munitions.[/b] [/quote]Well these "others" happen to include tens of thousands of gulf war veterans. I'm not going to provide you with any conclusive evidence that there's a link between DU use and health problems, but the fact remains that health problems follow DU whereever it's used. These health problems are very consistent with those who are overexposed to radiation. Really, it's not that hard to report something is inconclusive. The fact that the testing of soldiers' or civilian exposure to DU during the Gulf War was virtually nonexistant is enough alone to prove it inconclusive. As far as I know, these reports have also failed to extensively test veterans for levels of radiation. On the other hand, there are a large number of veterans and their doctors who now claim they have tested positively for excessive amounts of radiation. Who is one to believe?[/b][/quote]Neither one of us are experts, so lets just agree that we see it differently and that is fine with me. Cheers and thank you for the discussion.

[johnnie red]

Yes, agreed! :thu: