OMG :mad:
You've maybe seen this before. However it's not bad to see it again although images make you feel....aghhhh

WARNING M rated . Do not go in there if your stomach can't handle much....

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html
Posted on 2004-02-08 21:11:25 by Milos
Hi Milos,

We have discussed this before and I agree that it is criminal and they should have to clean it up or stop using it. However it is not only the Americans that use DUA as the site seems to suggest without actually saying it. I handled alot of DUA in the airforce (it is used in anti-armour guns and also phalanx though that is after my time). The fact is that it is as they say only harmful if actually used and atomized on impact, which like any armor peircing round it will always do. The armed forces that use this ammunition will never clean it up so I agree that it should be banned, it is a greater problem than any chemical weapon that I can think of and a longer term problem than the current crop of biological weapons. DUA should be classified a chemical weapon and banned under the 1972 chemical weapons treaty.
Posted on 2004-02-09 00:16:46 by donkey
Oh yea. Propaganda!!!!!

Dead and odd looking babies make great propaganda. Facts don't.

I don't particularly like the idea of spreading radioactive waste either.

A quick Google found this DOD PDF:

Depleted Uranium

Considering this come from bushflash.com and his associated site bushwarcrimes.org, this is an obvious bitter fear-mongerer, and probable manipulator of the truth.

Always consider the source.
Posted on 2004-02-09 01:27:40 by ThoughtCriminal
The thing is that as much as I agree that the web site is blowing it out of proportion, the one you posted is trivializing the effects of DUA. I remember the training we got in handling it (I have handled alot of it) and it was considered a little more dangerous than what they are telling the public. As I said the problem is not with the actual ammunition, it is the atomized uranium that is inhaled into the lungs that is the problem. Because it is a heavy metal (as they said in your site) like lead and the others it accumulates in the body and long term exposure to particulate DU can actually rasie the amount in your body to very dangerous levels quickly. It is true that on initial contact or contact with the ammunition there is no danger, but long term effects are disasterous. Also Uranium whether depleted or not is poisonous regardless of it radioactive state.

I see sites like the one Milos posted alot and they tend to blow the whole issue out of proportion so much that they are hurting the efforts to get the ammunition banned. After all, even I look at it and say "well, it isn;t that bad" and I have wanted it banned for quite some time.
Posted on 2004-02-09 01:48:09 by donkey
all these do-gooders are going to have to realise that america doesn't bomb people with depleted uranium which causes deformities ..... so, if any children are born with deformities caused by depleted uranium weapons - then the children themselves must have WANTED to be born with deformities - because american d.u. only brings good things such as freedom to whoever it is dropped on .......

...besides, showing pictures of the deformities is going to be a real 'turn-off' for people who genuinely wish to eradicate these weapons - they don't like their emotions being 'manipulated' by images of 'horror'

...and as we all know, the bush regime (and the like), are reasonable, considerate people, who , if evidence were presented to them that d.u. weapons were anything other than beneign, would have no hesitation in putting a stop to their use, instantly ... lol

oh f*ck... it's too easy ...;)
Posted on 2004-02-09 04:43:16 by argus
Oh, and if pesticides are good enough for our plants, they'll be good enough for the vietnamese...
Posted on 2004-02-09 04:46:54 by f0dder

Oh, and if pesticides are good enough for our plants, they'll be good enough for the vietnamese...


Pesticides are certainly good enough for us to eat. :grin:

I think you meant weed-killer which is probably very bad to eat.
Posted on 2004-02-09 05:41:02 by ThoughtCriminal

Pesticides are certainly good enough for us to eat. :grin:

While it's pretty hard to avoid them, I sometimes wonder how neat it is to ingest stuff that has LD50 ratings... oh well, I drink coke too.
Posted on 2004-02-09 05:45:08 by f0dder
...
war's not a game.
war is WAR.
Posted on 2004-02-09 12:01:52 by HeLLoWorld
pesticides ? ....get a load of this monsanto chicanery

joke i saw recently ...

waiter .." what will you be having today,sir .... the mad-cow beef, the mercury fish or the hormone chicken " ?

customer .." uummmm.... i think i'll just have the vegetables "

waiter .." fine ....... pesticide or hepatitis " ? :tongue:
Posted on 2004-02-09 18:15:10 by argus
I suggest the problem will remain that depleted uranium and similar technology are very effective armour piercing weaponry so it will be almost impossible to ban it. What follows is the cover up of the effects on people like the soldier in battle areas who have ingested the dust and civilians who live in those areas for a very long time to come.

Governments will always cover up the related probles as the cost would be prohibitive to compensate the victims. Here in OZ we had English atomic testing back in the 50s and soldier were ordered to turn their backs at what was supposed to be a safe distance. 30 years later they started dropping like flies from cancer yet our government help up and obstructed compensation until most of them died from cancer.

There is always some bullsh*t way to avoid taking responsibility for the consequences, government specifications on what a safe level of exposure is yet none of the government would wish to be exposed to these SAFE level of radiation.

Will the profits made by Haliburton if they make any at all out of Iraq be the source of comensation to the victims of radioactive coatings ?

Don't hold your breath waiting.

Regards,
http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/cryptmail.php?tauntspiders=in.your.face@nomail.for.you&id=2f46ed9f24413347f14439b64bdc03fd
Posted on 2004-02-09 20:11:16 by hutch--
I think it's really nice that US solider got to see their own hands x-rayed through closed eye-lids. So much for not testing terror-style weapons against your own population - they could at least have used POWs.
Posted on 2004-02-09 20:21:28 by f0dder
did you see the thing last week - where a gi refused to take an injection ---- so he was sentenced to 3 months military jail (before being discharged with dishonours) .... he appealed and was released pending a further trial .... so they tried to give him another jab which he refused ........

and now , if the judge at the next trial overrules his successful appeal - he will have to serve 2 * 3 months

i'm sure that when the army sends it's recruiting pin-ups around the schools they don't mention that you have to be prepared to be a guinea-pig & let them jack you up with any old drug cocktail they feel like using on you
Posted on 2004-02-09 20:44:44 by argus
waiter .." what will you be having today,sir .... the mad-cow beef, the mercury fish or the hormone chicken " ?


Well, the mad-cow thing could have been prevented but has nothing whatsoever to do with chemicals or pesticides, it has to do with feeding a herbiverous animal meat byproducts and introducing diseases into it's life cycle that evolution has not developped a resistance for.

Mercury, the number one cause of mecury in the water supply is from trees rotting under water. It is well known that both the lumber industry and the hydro-electric industry are at fault for this. Lumber because the tree byproducts are dumped into the efluence of the processing plants and hydro electric because of the forest they flood to create the resevoirs. The massive hydro electric projects in my area of the world have irrevocably damaged the environment here while at the same time being touted as a clean renewable source of energy. Nuclear power is a much better solution if handled properly.

Hormone chicken, I'll give you that one.

war's not a game.
war is WAR.


Too true. However the idea of the treaties is to prevent the signing countries from manufactuing the weapons in peace time. Once a country is at war and loosing it will naturally use all the weapons at it's disposal, the idea is to make it difficult to have the really dangerous stuff around when you are likely to use it. I am under no illusions that if a country has the weapons and is loosing anyway they will refrain, the world just doesn't work that way.

And once more...

This problem is not exclusive to the US as everybody seems to imply, there are *alot* of armies that use DU ammunition including the armies of several of the countries in which the posters live. Why not try to get your own governments to ban the ammunition instead of lobbing the blame off on the US alone as usual. It is very nice to have the US as a whipping boy and ignoring the fact that where you live is also part of the problem but nothing gets solved until some country does something. I handled DUA in the early 80's, long before Bush sr. came to office and it is just stupid to make this a Bush or Iraq issue, it goes well beyond that.
Posted on 2004-02-09 20:59:24 by donkey
The falicy of war is that the goals are obtainable, and the losses are acceptible. The costs are far greater than we can imagine, and the goals are there only to draw the line between friend and foe.

Anyone who would sacrifice tomorrow for today is preparing to die - I feel our time grows short... :(
Posted on 2004-02-09 22:18:42 by bitRAKE
This world isn't a safe place, I wish it was.
"I'm a war president"...

hmm...
Posted on 2004-02-10 06:52:49 by scientica

This problem is not exclusive to the US as everybody seems to imply, there are *alot* of armies that use DU ammunition including the armies of several of the countries in which the posters live. Why not try to get your own governments to ban the ammunition instead of lobbing the blame off on the US alone as usual. It is very nice to have the US as a whipping boy and ignoring the fact that where you live is also part of the problem but nothing gets solved until some country does something.

You're right about that, the blame is not only on the US. However, the biggest amounts of mass destruction weapons are held by the United States and Russia. Let's not forget that either... :(
I handled DUA in the early 80's, long before Bush sr. came to office and it is just stupid to make this a Bush or Iraq issue, it goes well beyond that.

I fully agree with you on that. There have been many abuses and violations of international laws and treaties in the past too. I think this topics are being discussed again because of the recent events on Iraq, but it goes way back.
Posted on 2004-02-10 16:45:18 by QvasiModo