Quote :

"It's been echoed a bunch of times, but it's in our best interest to allow the main actors involved to just keep killing each other."

as opposed to prevention??????????????? notice the excess question marks

btw Shrike Israel is a idiot, as no matter who wins in Syria they will still be 'Israel' to the rest of the middle east, as in having no legitimacy.

9/4/2013 8:47:42 PM

Chicken hawks on both sides are talking about the “ground situation.”
But the sitrep is this: Both sides are hell bent on fighting to the last man in a sectarian civil WAR.

The most we can do in my opinion is follow the UN's advice and search for diplomatic resolution. AND in the mean time aid refugee displacement which would involve proxy transportation pickups and provisional camps. That is the MOST we can do and is the only responsible path we can take as a world power. Anything else is whimsical sabre rattling.

9/4/2013 9:35:50 PM

This is some fucked up shit.

Us citizen caught in FBI trap trying to help terrorist group fighting against Assad in Syria, the SAME terrorist group the US is aiding with money and weapons. That's some rich shit.

http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/fbi_entraps_us_citizen_attempting_to_join_usfunded_al_qaeda_in_syria/

9/4/2013 9:41:53 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLrGUXk-h0M

Im not sure what the cost of these are now as they've been out for quite some time, but they are a great way to ensure a stable provisional camp for refugees.

If you need to put in air condition or utilities all you need is a drill and a saw.

9/4/2013 10:54:55 PM

Obama says its our moral obligation to save lives.

26000 people died of hunger today
25 million dollars could have saved them all
tomahawk missiles cost 1.4 million dollars each

YOU DO THE MATH

9/4/2013 11:45:28 PM

Its funny watching the president request a political mandate from Congress by paying superficial tribute to the constitution, only to know that those congressman will then go against the overwhelming popular will of their constituents.

It's a clever little way of pretending that the American people have some sort of way of controlling our foreign adventures, even though we totally don't.


All the politicians get to cover their asses, and the American public is on the hook for whatever colossal fuckup this inevitably becomes.

Democracy, bitches.

[Edited on September 5, 2013 at 12:33 AM. Reason : well played, establishment. well played.]

9/5/2013 12:29:38 AM

more like republic, bitches

9/5/2013 1:14:37 AM

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=efa542de-3059-4bd6-a05f-f74d0e1771a3

Quote :

"While saying “there is no debate about the horrors of chemical warfare,” Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday said a drumbeat for military strikes against Syria “speaks to the degree to which Congress is way out of touch” with the priorities of the American people. He cited jobs and global warming among priorities that are important to Americans but lost in the debate on Syria. He also asked how a U.S. military intervention would be paid for. “We’ve cut back on education, we’ve cut back on nutrition programs, we’ve thrown kids off Head Start. We have billions to spend on a war but no money to take care of the very pressing needs of the American people. That bothers me a lot,” Sanders said."

on. point.

9/5/2013 9:43:38 AM

Agreed.

However, another part of me is thinking along the lines let's just cut the fucking pretense and start taking over countries and have an official American Empire but I'm not sure that the problems we'd inherit wouldn't outweigh the resources.

Granted our de facto empire is giving us the problem with very little resources....

9/5/2013 9:54:22 AM

Congress is there to follow the will of the American people. The American people in this instance are overwhelmingly against any action in Syria. So why is there even a debate?

9/5/2013 10:24:57 AM

^ America is a plutocracy. Corporations, the wealthy elite, and the bloated defense/surveillance/intelligence/security apparatus determine our true policy.

9/5/2013 10:55:11 AM

Quote :

"Congress is there to follow the will of the American people. The American people in this instance are overwhelmingly against any action in Syria. So why is there even a debate?"

Did you just tacitly admit that Congress isn't actually elected in actual representation of the American people?

9/5/2013 11:30:48 AM

Quote :

"Its funny watching the president request a political mandate from Congress by paying superficial tribute to the constitution, only to know that those congressman will then go against the overwhelming popular will of their constituents."

Umm, why in the world would congressmen go against the overwhelming will of the constituents when it also goes against Obama. 2 birds, 1 stone. (unless you're referring to the Democrat dominated Senate).

9/5/2013 11:54:31 AM

[Edited on September 5, 2013 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/5/2013 12:00:09 PM

^^ military industrial complex?

9/5/2013 2:12:49 PM

^^^ They do it all the time. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, such is the nature of a republic.

9/5/2013 3:38:37 PM

Holding on to the minor distinction between democracy and a republic is pretty weak.

If elected officials rarely voted against the will of their constituents, then you could say, "such is the nature of a republic."


But when they do so, over, and over, and over again, then you have to question the very legitimacy of of the system. Simply dismissing it and saying, "welp, thems the breaks" is a surefire way to enable authoritarian rule.

9/5/2013 3:55:21 PM

Free of meddling influences such as cronyism and lobbyist bribery, it would be a self-correcting system...you could diverge from the will of constituents to an extent, but too much and you'd lose your seat.

On the other hand, the system is designed that way largely for the exact purpose of not giving the common, unintelligent and/or ignorant voter what he wants.

9/5/2013 4:04:44 PM

Agree with the first part, not with the second.


To think that the system is designed to remove "the unintelligent" or "ignorant" from policy and decision making is a romantic view of representative democracy at best. The far more likely reason is to remove the "weak" and "powerless" from decision making. Wars would be fought a lot less often if the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful were asked to "defend freedom." I'm certain that you are aware of this.

9/5/2013 4:12:13 PM

actually, thats exactly why they did it. the founding fathers were terrified of direct democracy and we know this because they said so in their writing.

9/5/2013 4:37:37 PM

^^ In addition to ^, the sons of the rich and powerful used to be pretty routinely involved in the fighting. The CIA was almost exclusively an Ivy League institution until fairly recently, and our military's officers were drawn fairly heavily from the wealthy and successful classes as well. The military now is far from a bunch of uneducated rubes, but there has been a relative divorce of military service from the more priveliged classes.



http://www.amazon.com/AWOL-Unexcused-Absence-Americas-Military/dp/B001OW5NDW

that's an OK book that discusses the history of that divorce and divide. I don't agree with all of their conclusions (most of all, with respect to compulsory national service), but it is decidedly non-partisan and tries to be pretty clear with what's objective and what's subjective/opinion.

9/5/2013 6:09:55 PM

Quote :

"The military now is far from a bunch of uneducated rubes, but there has been a relative divorce of military service from the more priveliged classes."

These are some very interesting points, but I get confused. Is this about a military largely composed of lower class people, or class divisions within the military?

Does it really help to have Ivy league children if they're going to be sitting in front of a computer screen running analysis of some type? Or making power points in some other part of the military complex?

9/5/2013 6:20:19 PM

Quote :

"The CIA was almost exclusively an Ivy League institution until fairly recently, and our military's officers were drawn fairly heavily from the wealthy and successful classes as well"

Doesn't this underscore my point? You're talking about an elite institution like the CIA and military officers. These aren't really the ones on the front lines, are they? How many Ivy league officers get blown to bits by IEDs? There is a very clear hierarchy in the military, just like there is in most institutions, were privilege and birthright give certain individuals a HUGE leg up.

Quote :

"actually, thats exactly why they did it. the founding fathers were terrified of direct democracy and we know this because they said so in their writing."

I'm aware of their thoughts, and the language they used. Just saying that in practice, the fear of direct democracy is always born out of a fear of the proletariat.

9/5/2013 7:02:50 PM

Quote :

"However, another part of me is thinking along the lines let's just cut the fucking pretense and start taking over countries and have an official American Empire but I'm not sure that the problems we'd inherit wouldn't outweigh the resources."

Imperialism didn't end because people are nice. It ended because they found a way to disguise it and corporate imperialism is much more lucrative.

Why run a nation and steal from/influence other nations when you can run a corporation and steal from/influence every nation?

9/5/2013 9:16:56 PM

This may be completely irrelevant, but I'll post it anyway (from 2010).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

Quote :

"Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study. Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents. Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer... Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that 'to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened'. US Marines first besieged and bombarded Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, in April 2004 after four employees of the American security company Blackwater were killed and their bodies burned. After an eight-month stand-off, the Marines stormed the city in November using artillery and aerial bombing against rebel positions. US forces later admitted that they had employed white phosphorus as well as other munitions... ... Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form. He said: 'My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside.'... The study, entitled 'Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009', is by Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi, and concludes that anecdotal evidence of a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects is correct. Infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1,000 births compared to 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait. The report says that the types of cancer are 'similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout'. Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people..."

[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 12:57 AM. Reason : ]

9/6/2013 12:56:54 AM

Didn't you already post that in another thread?

[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 8:44 AM. Reason : k]

9/6/2013 8:16:35 AM

it's been posted in this thread

here's more for anyone interested:



[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 8:47 AM. Reason : .]

9/6/2013 8:24:24 AM

^^^ so we developed a very effective weapon? sweet

9/6/2013 8:39:42 AM

you're a psychopath if that is really your takeaway from that post

9/6/2013 8:48:40 AM

really shitty troll

i doubt he'll be laughing if/when he or his fellow veterans develop cancer

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130521105557.htm

9/6/2013 10:00:42 AM

^^^^

Quote :

"nuclear power uses Uranium and what's left is called DU, that is, the energy has been taken out of it."

Quote :

"waste products from the whole process of nuclear power"

I would even be open to listening to the case that the US used biologically hazardous stuff in Iraq. I want to treat you people seriously. I try.

This guy starts out showing us that he has no fucking idea what he's talking about. Can a congressman talking to a documentary crew not read Wikipedia? I mean really people.

Depleted Uranium is like a giant magnet. A magnet for stupid. All other bad uninformed ideas flock to it. I mean, my god, it has the word "Uranium". And it was used in Iraq. Those are all the facts you need. Of course that caused birth defects. I get cancer just thinking about it.

9/6/2013 11:10:49 AM

^
what do you expect from a congressman? i didn't post the video for his chemical engineering expertise

something has caused ridiculous levels of cancer and birth defects in Iraq, and DU makes the most sense out of what we know. is it 100% proven? no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Chemical_toxicity

i'd like to hear your explanation of why it's so stupid.

[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM. Reason : .]

9/6/2013 11:33:26 AM

if you don't like what a congressmen said (who either misunderstood the science, or was trying to simplify them for the purpose of explanation and did a poor job), what do you think about the story in The Independent on the last page, or how about the Science Daily article posted above or the Journal it references:
Riyad Abdullah Fathi, Lilyan Yaqup Matti, Hana Said Al-Salih, Douglas Godbold. Environmental pollution by depleted uranium in Iraq with special reference to Mosul and possible effects on cancer and birth defect rates. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 2013; 29 (1): 7 DOI: 10.1080/13623699.2013.765173

I'm trying to take you seriously, but can you not realize that more than that congressman think its bad? I mean really people.

its bad shit

[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 11:51 AM. Reason : i actually don't try to take mrfrog seriously. i mean really people]

9/6/2013 11:50:36 AM

How does it make sense to you that vaporizing Uranium in the middle of the desert in batches of 1 kg or so (for a single shell) affects health?

Uranium as a gas is quite heavy. It doesn't go far. Where were the tanks relative to those communities with birth defects when they were actively firing shells?

How could these activities possible even have a prayer's chance of putting more Uranium into clouds and the environment than a coal plant?

How does an armor piercing round get vaporized within an Iraq community? None of it ever made any sense.

9/6/2013 11:59:24 AM

uranium gas, lol

[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 12:05 PM. Reason : i mean seriously people]

9/6/2013 12:01:43 PM

It has to be in some compound. What? I don't know. It doesn't easily convert into a gas. And it starts out in a ceramic form. Ceramic Uranium is perfectly safe. Even Yellowcake isn't very hazardous if there's nothing causing you to actively inhale it, which you should not do.

But I looked at that paper. It seems to make some crazy reference to the US more-or-less dumping buckets of nasty stuff on cities in the Persian Gulf war (NOT Iraq War). I don't have the actual paper and the abstract wasn't very convincing on the details, even for those distinctly different claims.

9/6/2013 12:19:01 PM

Quote :

". It seems to make some crazy reference to the US more-or-less dumping buckets of nasty stuff on cities in the Persian Gulf war"

hahaha, lol

- the credibility you already didn't have

for reference, here is the dumping buckets part mrfrog didn't understand from the abstract:

Quote :

"[...] About 1200 tonnes of ammunition were dropped on Iraq during the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003. As a result, contamination occurred in more than 350 sites in Iraq. Currently, Iraqis are facing about 140,000 cases of cancer, with 7000 to 8000 new ones registered each year. In Baghdad cancer incidences per 100,000 population have increased, just as they have also increased in Basra. The overall incidence of breast and lung cancer, Leukaemia and Lymphoma, has doubled, even tripled. The situation in Mosul city is similar to other regions. Before the Gulf Wars Mosul had a higher rate of cancer, but the rate of cancer has further increased since the Gulf Wars."

FYI: here is the full text. realize that this isn't the only publication on the topic.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13623699.2013.765173#.UioGH8bN39k

the wikipedia article you want the congressman to read is a good start for you, just scroll down to the sources at the bottom.

[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ^i don't know where to start with whats wrong in that post]

9/6/2013 12:41:50 PM

Sorry I read "Gulf War" and didn't get the "2003" after it.

But you still remain extremely disingenuous about this point

Quote :

"About 1200 tonnes of ammunition were dropped on Iraq "

That's not what we're talking about. We were talking about Depleted Uranium. What "ammunition" was DU put into if not armor piercing shells?

The full text you link to goes on to give charts of radioactivity. So what is it? A chemical hazard, or radiological hazard?

Which is it, tank armor/armor piercing rounds or "dropping" ammunition.

9/6/2013 12:58:19 PM

Quote :

"How does it make sense to you that vaporizing Uranium in the middle of the desert in batches of 1 kg or so (for a single shell) affects health? Uranium as a gas is quite heavy. It doesn't go far. Where were the tanks relative to those communities with birth defects when they were actively firing shells? How could these activities possible even have a prayer's chance of putting more Uranium into clouds and the environment than a coal plant? How does an armor piercing round get vaporized within an Iraq community? None of it ever made any sense."

"middle of the desert" includes the capital of Iraq, farmlands, etc. Batches of 1kg? How many batches total, and how many batches at a time?

Why do you assume it gets vaporized? Whatever particulate matter is left over has been visibly measured.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/22/iraq-nuclear-contaminated-sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium :

Quote :

"As early as 1997, British Army doctors warned the British MoD (Ministry of Defence) that exposure to depleted uranium increased the risk of developing lung, lymph and brain cancer, and recommended a series of safety precautions.[78] According to a report issued summarizing the advice of the doctors, "Inhalation of insoluble uranium dioxide dust will lead to accumulation in the lungs with very slow clearance—if any. … Although chemical toxicity is low, there may be localised radiation damage of the lung leading to cancer." The report warns that "All personnel … should be aware that uranium dust inhalation carries a long-term risk … [the dust] has been shown to increase the risks of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers."[78] In 2003, the Royal Society called, again, for urgent attention to be paid to the possible health and environmental impact of depleted uranium, and added its backing to the United Nations Environment Programme's call for a scientific assessment of sites struck with depleted uranium.[79] In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[80][81] Also, a 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10] Studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.[5]"

[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 1:07 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2013 1:07:11 PM

^^
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/apr/25/internationaleducationnews.armstrade

Quote :

"Depleted uranium is standard in a number of anti-tank weapons. Amounts in bullets, shells and bombs vary from 300 grams to 7 tonnes in the bunker-busters of the type dropped on Baghdad. The bombs used on the restaurant in an unsuccessful attempt to kill Saddam Hussein are believed to have contained tonnes of depleted uranium which would have contaminated the surrounding area. Experts have calculated that from all sources between 1,000 and 2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium were used by the coalition in the three-week conflict."

9/6/2013 1:13:13 PM

Quote :

""middle of the desert" includes the capital of Iraq, farmlands, etc."

tank-on-tank battles? These are armor piercing bullets, or the armor itself. I get it, the DU shell hits and creates Uranium gas compounds on impact.

But when was a tank shooting another tank in Baghdad?

Quote :

"Why do you assume it gets vaporized? Whatever particulate matter is left over has been visibly measured."

I assume its vaporized because that would have the largest health impact. I'm trying to make the DU case here.

9/6/2013 1:39:45 PM

aerosolized is the word you are looking for

Quote :

" tank-on-tank battles? These are armor piercing bullets, or the armor itself. I get it, the DU shell hits and creates Uranium gas compounds on impact. But when was a tank shooting another tank in Baghdad?"

actually you clearly don't get it


[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM. Reason : hint: its not only in tank-to-tank anti-tank rounds. its not only in tank-to-tank anything]

9/6/2013 1:44:29 PM

Quote :

"tank-on-tank battles? These are armor piercing bullets, or the armor itself. I get it, the DU shell hits and creates Uranium gas compounds on impact. But when was a tank shooting another tank in Baghdad?"

Why are you still making this irrelevant point? It doesn't matter how they were used. The traces are measurable. Or else they're traces of some other chemical we used.

Or do you think I'm making the argument that they used them with the intention to cause cancer? I'm not.

[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2013 1:47:32 PM

Quote :

"aerosolized is the word you are looking for"

2003 Apr
Modeling of the dispersion of depleted uranium aerosol.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12705453

Quote :

"The main result is that the depleted uranium mass is deposited very close to the release point."

Uranium is heavy.

[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 1:49 PM. Reason : ]

9/6/2013 1:49:11 PM

why did you post that link? I understand what aerosolized means, you are the one who keeps using vaporized and uranium gas incorrectly when you probably mean aerosolized.

[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM. Reason : also, again, its not only in tank-to-tank rounds. hell, it was even in hand grenades for awhile. ]

9/6/2013 1:52:54 PM

I'm pretty sure inhaling ANY metal particles into your lungs will lead to very bad things. Depleted Uranium is used as a weapon b/c it is extremely dense. It's no more of a radiation threat than the bricks that houses are made of.

It's also amusing to see everyone clowning on the one guy here that actually works in the nuclear industry.

9/6/2013 2:35:25 PM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure inhaling ANY metal particles into your lungs will lead to very bad things. Depleted Uranium is used as a weapon b/c it is extremely dense. It's no more of a radiation threat than the bricks that houses are made of."

Its toxicity is what makes it dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Chemical_toxicity

Quote :

"It's also amusing to see everyone clowning on the one guy here that actually works in the nuclear industry."

This is not really about nuclear engineering. It's chemistry and biology. The only thing we've learned from mrfrog is that Uranium is heavy, and I think everyone knows that.

[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 2:44 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2013 2:42:36 PM

working in the nuclear industry doesn't have anything to do with this. if mrfrog was an industrial hygienist he would have credibility, but from what he was written about uranium gas and vaporization its pretty clear that he is not an industrial hygienist. i'm actually trained professionally to deal with radiological contaminants such as DU, but I'm not basing anything off of my own personal knowledge or experience (I have never been involved in a project remediating DU), everything I've said is what has been said in the peer-reviewed journals and media that has been posted. (by that I mean that I was previously aware of the different types of radiation, exposure pathways, PPE required, and remediation methods)

It is true that DU is used because its dense, but that doesn't mean its not a threat. It is an absolute fact that it is more dangerous than the bricks houses are made of, you can argue about the level to which it is more of a threat but it is absolutely incorrect to say that it poses no more risk than a clay brick. i have a brick house and you won't find any radiation in my piss, but you will in the people who live in those areas and even in veterans (even years after the exposure ended, some veterans have uranium levels 10-100 times above safe levels in their urine)

look, its understandable to not fully understand exposure pathways and risks, but dismissing the large amount of empirical evidence because you don't understand the risks or have been told its safe is just dumb. i don't understand TKE-Teg's continual denial of any issue he personally disagrees with, regardless of evidence, simply because he doesn't agree with it.


[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2013 2:52:18 PM

politics aside (yes i know this situation by definition makes this an impossibility), does anyone ACTUALLY want the US to take military action in Syria at this point (besides politicians)??

It just seems to me like a really bad move as there isn't any real effect that our missiles would have to prevent or stop the killing going on... in fact our missiles would make the region less stable (in my opinion).

9/6/2013 3:22:29 PM

It looks like Tarpon wants to

9/6/2013 3:32:43 PM