TERB In Need of a Banner
Toronto Escorts

Gulf War Syndrome II About to Break

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Corporals Don't Order Nuclear Radiation Weapons, Presidents Do

by Bob Nichols

09/04/04 "dissidentvoice" -- President George W. Bush's on demand concert performance dubbed "Shock and Awe" hit the Iraqis hard. It was March 20, 2003 and the full court press was totally ON! It was us or them. No Choice!

Surprise! The whole world now knows the nation of Iraq was defenseless before the "only remaining" Mighty Super Power War Machine. It was a turkey shoot. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

The far superior American weapons guaranteed killing, maiming, cooking, and dismembering Iraqi soldiers and civilians; that much was child's play. The really good part, as far as a beaming President Bush and his Neo-Cons were concerned, was the unseen slaughter of the Iraqi soldiers' and civilian's children and grand children into eternity with great birth defects and fearsome cancers!

War Crimes are a good thing to the Neo-Cons. Iraq is a Nuclear Radiation War fought against a long vanquished enemy with Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons for fun and profit. This is as real as it gets.

Bush & Company had set about the grim Ted Bundy Task of diminishing the Iraqi race; not just the Iraqi military. Such is the goal of America's natural born genocidal killers. This was the political decision decided by Bush and his genocide committed crew.

The reflexively and sincerely racist Neo-Con political buddies of President Bush, no doubt, remember the crucial meetings with a twisted, satisfied smile. For, you see, that's what the rulers of America do for work, they go to meetings, have coffee and a Danish, then plan mass murder.

The cold-blooded, modern Fascists working for President Bush selected radioactive and poisonous uranium gas as their own personal weapon of choice for the genocidal radiation wars to come. Their own Zyklon B poison gas, as it were. America would always triumph, by God! (www.spectacle.org/695/zyklonb.html)............

Link to the rest of the story, a bit long but gives an excellent report on "Depleted Uranium Munitions" being used along with the coming consequences for ALL exposed, both friendly & foe. It makes Agent Orange from the Nam War look like childs play:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6855.htm
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Thanks for the balanced reporting.

Otb
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
onthebottom said:
Thanks for the balanced reporting.

Otb
You're welcome.

Thought it was a fair, factual report of the present situation over there regarding the use of Nuclear Radioactive Weapons by the Bush Administrations, both father & son.

Funny thing is most people would think the use of Nuclear Weapons were outlawed years ago. Maybe those laws don't apply to the 'just wars' Bush has started.....or maybe the use of these radiation leaking weapons are meant to be a warning to the Chi-Comms on what to expect if they push the US into a military engagement with them. Military experts have always said any war with Red China would HAVE to be a nuclear exchange as conventional weapons could never kill enough to be effective and win......
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
What evidence do you have that depleted Uranium munitions pose any health threat?
Other than the bugbear of "radiation" and "nuclear weapons", that is - which is all the writer of that article throws out ....
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Ranger68 said:
What evidence do you have that depleted Uranium munitions pose any health threat?
Other than the bugbear of "radiation" and "nuclear weapons", that is - which is all the writer of that article throws out ....
And your evidence they don't is…? Care to shop for a house next to a storage site for depleted uranium from Hydro reactors? How'dya like to have a "storage site" drop from the sky and obliterate your cousin's place next door? To say nothing of obliterating your cousin. If you think radiation is just a "bugbear", I assume you blithely refuse the lead apron when you get x-rays?

C'mon Ranger. The article's definitely as one-sided as most of the "Hooray for US" jingoism that crops up here. Just on the other side. But asking for evidence that radiation's not harmful…?
 

xarir

Retired TERB Ass Slapper
Aug 20, 2001
3,765
0
36
Trolling the Deleted Threads Repository
There is arguably no hard proof that DU weapons pose lasting health risks. Nonetheless, there is enough circumstantial evidence that the Human Rights Commission of the UN has and is investigating the use of DU weapons with a possible aim to banning them.

Note of course, that a UN ban is not necessarily meaningful as land mines are on the banned list although the US and a few other countries continue to deploy them.

For more info do a google on Commission on Human Rights Depleted Uranium Weapons.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Ranger68 said:
What evidence do you have that depleted Uranium munitions pose any health threat?
Other than the bugbear of "radiation" and "nuclear weapons", that is - which is all the writer of that article throws out ....
And you are by implication saying radiation exposure, like the increased levels of mercury and arsenic exposure, which the Bush administration favor, pose no health risk? Another bugbear I suppose?

The article:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6855.htm

does spell out some of those health threats you choose to ignore.

Your thinking is quite common though. About 35 years ago I was subjected to it during CBN (Chem/Bio/Nuclear) Warfare training in the US army during that Viet Nam War, that Bush/Cheney chose to avoid due to other priorites on their parts. Anyways during that 'training' we were instructed that 'radiation poisioning and exposures' were really a communist lie & plot to demoralize US troops. Our 'instructors' assured us that covering yourself completely with your vinyl rain poncho was all you needed to do to protest yourself from nuclear radiation! Their thinking was...if you weren't killed in the blast, you were OK as long as you were covered with your rain poncho! When questioned on radioactive half-life and fallout, these same instructors dismissed that as just another commie lie!
 

Keebler Elf

The Original Elf
Aug 31, 2001
14,572
203
63
The Keebler Factory
People who work in nuclear power stations are exposed to radiation on a daily basis. It's not enough to warrant a health risk, HOWEVER, pregnant mothers are moved out of the exposed areas during pregnancy b/c there is a risk of radiation poisoning for their expected child.

Radiation poisoning is anything but a "bugbear." Shame on anyone who thinks otherwise.

For more on depleted uranium:

http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm

Sweet dreams.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
oldjones said:
And your evidence they don't is…? Care to shop for a house next to a storage site for depleted uranium from Hydro reactors? How'dya like to have a "storage site" drop from the sky and obliterate your cousin's place next door? To say nothing of obliterating your cousin. If you think radiation is just a "bugbear", I assume you blithely refuse the lead apron when you get x-rays?

C'mon Ranger. The article's definitely as one-sided as most of the "Hooray for US" jingoism that crops up here. Just on the other side. But asking for evidence that radiation's not harmful…?
No, SOME radiation is CLEARLY harmful. So? What's the level of exposure of these soldiers vs. the ones back at camp sitting in front of a TV monitor all day? Or the ones just out and about? How much exposure is being endured by people in areas where depleted uranium has been used? Because "radiation", despite your implication that "it's dangerous" is ALL AROUND YOU - even, right now.

The meaning of "bugbear" is a phrase that, by mere invocation, causes suspicion or fear. That's what that writer did. Invoke a bugbear - hoping that, the mere mention of radiation and nuclear weaponry is enough to cause suspicion and fear.

What's your evidence that using a cell phone doesn't cause health problems? What's your evidence that fluoridation of water doesn't cause health problems? What's your evidence that tapioca pudding doesn't cause health problems?

Don't transfer here - the article, and the poster, are PRESUPPOSING (for the purposes of causing discontent) that something that's called "depleted uranium" must be "radioactive" or "nuclear" and therefore should be fearful. I'm asking for evidence.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
WoodPeckr said:
And you are by implication saying radiation exposure, like the increased levels of mercury and arsenic exposure, which the Bush administration favor, pose no health risk? Another bugbear I suppose?
No, I didn't say that. Don't put up straw men - if you want to argue with me, argue with my point, not those of your choosing.

WoodPeckr said:
Your thinking is quite common though.
No, I don't think critical thinking is all that common, these days.
:rolleyes:
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Keebler Elf said:
People who work in nuclear power stations are exposed to radiation on a daily basis. It's not enough to warrant a health risk, HOWEVER, pregnant mothers are moved out of the exposed areas during pregnancy b/c there is a risk of radiation poisoning for their expected child.

Radiation poisoning is anything but a "bugbear." Shame on anyone who thinks otherwise.

For more on depleted uranium:

http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm

Sweet dreams.
Radiation poisoning has practically nothing to do with depleted uranium, which is drastically LESS radioactive than about a thousand other things in the ground.

And, dude, EVERYONE is exposed to radiation on a daily basis, not just those who work in nuclear power plants. Criminy.

Shame on you for fear-mongering!

http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/health.shtml

Lots of links to external studies on that page, so no cries of "well, what do you expect from (insert name of random evil biased neo-con megacorporation here)" thank you very much.

Nice to know that fear-mongering is alive and well, along with all these bugbears.
;)
 

nyme

New member
Sep 6, 2004
1
0
0
If you wish to attack Bush then at least be credible. I for one hope that he is not re-elected. I do not like him.
However there is a lot of non sense posted here about DU weapons. A real lack of understand concerning things radioactive.
Find another way to bash Bush. The damage he has done to the world oppion of the US for example.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Ranger68 said:
Radiation poisoning has practically nothing to do with depleted uranium, which is drastically LESS radioactive than about a thousand other things in the ground.


;)
Was starting to feel all warm & fuzzy and safe at that above statement. Also was about to propose a toast of "Cheers" with some of that shimmering mercury/arsenic enhanced water Bush is so fond of, until reading this link:

http://www.cadu.org.uk/intro.htm

It's one of far too many on this DU issue along with the other listed link, complete with evidence & sources:

http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm

Not that there is reason to doubt what you state, except that I seem to remenber these same defenses being given for Agent Orange use back in the days of Nam, that if handled properly there would be no problems with agent Orange. This of course turned out to be another huge error that the people in Viet Nam and our own US Veterans are still suffering for to this very day.

I will even go further by maintaining that a very strong case can be made that "DU Munitions" can be classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction by International law and as such these WMD have finally been found along with the party guilty of using them.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
That you think DU munitions classify as weapons of mass destruction demonstrates either your lack of knowledge on the subject or your unmitigated bias.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Ranger68 said:
That you think DU munitions classify as weapons of mass destruction demonstrates either your lack of knowledge on the subject or your unmitigated bias.
I am hardly alone on this position:

A sub-commission of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights appointed a 'rapporteur' to investigate the use of depleted uranium weapons among other types of weapons, after passing a resolution which categorised depleted uranium weapons alongside such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, napalm, and cluster bombs as a 'weapon of indiscriminate effect'.

the above from:http://www.cadu.org.uk/intro.htm

Do those in the UN and United Kingdom also suffer from a lack of knowledge and unmitigated bias?


Dow Chemical over 30-40 years ago claimed Agent Orange, if handled properly was really a 'handy dandy safe' weed killer. We know today Dow lied. I'm sure there are those today in that DU industry saying the same about DU Munitions. Only time will tell.
 

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,572
8
38
nyme said:
If you wish to attack Bush then at least be credible. I for one hope that he is not re-elected. I do not like him.
However there is a lot of non sense posted here about DU weapons. A real lack of understand concerning things radioactive.
Find another way to bash Bush. The damage he has done to the world oppion of the US for example.
yeah- don't pick on George W just because he's gay
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
A "weapon of indiscriminate effect" isn't a "weapon of mass destruction".
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Ranger68 said:
A "weapon of indiscriminate effect" isn't a "weapon of mass destruction".
Granted that may be true but the net 'results and effects' are very much the same. After thinking about that point it's hard to tell which is worse a "weapon of indiscriminate effect" or a "weapon of mass destruction."

Take for example the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster of 1986,
http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/chernobyl.html
while what happened there wouldn't be considered the result of a WMD, the 'effect' of that disaster could be very similar to what would happen if a "weapon of indiscriminate effect" were used. That land in and around Chernobyl is considered unsafe, dead and poisoned for tens of thousands of years.
 
Toronto Escorts