^^Fuck-no.

9/6/2013 4:11:03 PM

i say bomb the shit out of them. cruise missiles have a shelf life anyway don't they?

9/6/2013 4:12:42 PM

Poor effort, step it up

9/6/2013 4:44:30 PM

I'll personally admit that I've been convinced that it's definitely worse than throwing clay bricks in terms of exposure, but I'm still not convinced they need to be regulated to the same degree as chemical or nuclear weapons or even mentioned in the same conversation.

9/6/2013 4:50:14 PM

Quote :

"everything I've said is what has been said in the peer-reviewed journals and media that has been posted."

But about what? The accusation is that Iraqi people suffered extremely measurable health consequences due to use of DU in wars.

...due to the ionizing radiation of alpha particles and fission fragments after inhalation? Yes? No? Or is the answer going to be "yes but it's also chemical", and then it'll become Schrodinger's mechanism that is one whenever it makes the stories sound worse?

I honestly don't want to defend them. But Uranium is similar to lead in a number of ways relevant to biological pathways. We don't worry as much about lead poisoning when a lead bullet hits a lead jacket. I mean, I would worry about that. Don't go crushing up or processing either of these in your basement. If you work with materials like that you'll have it on your mind.

I'd be more worried about other kinds of irresponsible industrial activities (of which I'm sure Iraq had no shortage of) causing cancer bubbles. The vast majority of stuff on Iraq DU is absolutely just batshit insane.

9/6/2013 4:54:21 PM

Its not just Iraq, its also a big problem in Kosovo and other theaters where DU was used. Its only a matter of time before DU is only allowed in certain munitions and only used in certain situations, there is worldwide lobbying to ban it.

[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 5:00 PM. Reason : the most immediate thing we need to do is monitoring in soldiers and veterans ]

9/6/2013 4:58:06 PM

Quote :

"I'll personally admit that I've been convinced that it's definitely worse than throwing clay bricks in terms of exposure, but I'm still not convinced they need to be regulated to the same degree as chemical or nuclear weapons or even mentioned in the same conversation."

Why not? Since DU has been used in Iraq, the rate of congenital birth defects has risen by 17x. Childhood cancers are 10x higher than similarly industrialized countries. Its half life is over 4 billion years. Sarin's is 24 hours. Sarin is far, far more immediately deadly, but it is not known to cause cancer or fertility issues, as far as I know. They're both liable to kill civilians as well as combatants. I'm just curious what your distinguisher is.

Quote :

"But about what? The accusation is that Iraqi people suffered extremely measurable health consequences due to use of DU in wars. ...due to the ionizing radiation of alpha particles and fission fragments after inhalation? Yes? No? Or is the answer going to be "yes but it's also chemical", and then it'll become Schrodinger's mechanism that is one whenever it makes the stories sound worse?"

Wikipedia: "The chemical toxicity of depleted uranium is about a million times greater in vitro than its radiological hazard"

Quote :

"I honestly don't want to defend them. But Uranium is similar to lead in a number of ways relevant to biological pathways. We don't worry as much about lead poisoning when a lead bullet hits a lead jacket. I mean, I would worry about that. Don't go crushing up or processing either of these in your basement. If you work with materials like that you'll have it on your mind."

Then show me where DU was not used, only lead ammunition, and cancer rates increased dramatically.

Quote :

"The vast majority of stuff on Iraq DU is absolutely just batshit insane."

You keep saying this but I have no idea what you're talking about. What in this specific thread is batshit? Are you incapable of separating the people in this thread from Alex Jones?

9/6/2013 5:24:05 PM

This is probably the best report about DU that I've read, its a great mix as far as being easy to understand but informative. It only involves Iraq but its a great read. This was commissioned by the Norweigian Ministry of Foreign affairs:
http://www.ikvpaxchristi.nl/media/files/in-a-state-of-uncertainty.pdf

this isn't really conspiracy stuff. the UN committee has called for a ban on them, European Parliament has banned them, the WHO has called for monitoring for children and mandatory DU cleanup, Canadian Parliament has called for bans, etc... not to make an appeal to authority argument, but reasonable people have decided that they have bad effects so maybe there is some empirical evidence worth considering before you decide they are not a problem.

(and if you just don't care about anyone in iraq, afghanistan, or the balkans you should know that its an issue here too since the military hasn't been following best practices for handling waste. And hell, the manufacturer of many of the weapons used is now a superfund site: http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/complex/starmet-corporation.htm and there are many others)

9/6/2013 6:07:17 PM

I've never read a single article that made me think DU was responsible for Gulf War Syndrome and mortality rate increases instead of more widespread culprits like destruction of chemical weapons plants and the insane number of oil fires across the country.

9/6/2013 8:06:28 PM

When is obama going to bomb the american food industry? They've been using chemical weapons for years.

9/6/2013 8:16:58 PM

^^ so peeing uranium is natural?

9/6/2013 8:19:36 PM

^WEAK BRO TRY HARDEr

9/6/2013 8:59:51 PM

we are exposed to uranium from food and water intake, and it's worse if you live in coal mining country. High uranium concentrations are usually associated with kidney problems though, which isn't typically a complaint with Gulf War syndrome.

Coal miners have been exposed to high concentrations of uranium for years and have a higher than normal cancer rate, but they're also exposed to radon, industrial solvents, blacklung, and are probably more likely to smoke and drink. You'd think if it was just the uranium causing the problems in these post-war countries, similar symptoms would be rampant in Wyoming and West Virginia.

9/6/2013 10:31:48 PM

these guys are pissing uranium levels 100 times above safe level, its not background levels

9/6/2013 11:36:51 PM

its just another poisonous metal, big whoop.

besides, you and your cohorts would be well advised to piss and moan about something else. this isnt a type of ordinance that the military is going to give up, and the tungsten/nickle/cobalt alternatives that the military is cooking up (in case the hippies win) are much much worse than DU.

learn to love it.

[Edited on September 6, 2013 at 11:43 PM. Reason : -]

9/6/2013 11:41:07 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0906/Syria-vote-What-happens-if-Obama-loses

Quote :

"But there are some indications a Syria strike is unlikely without congressional approval. A New York Times story Friday quoted anonymous White House aides as saying such a unilateral course of action is “almost unthinkable,” and would surely launch a move toward impeachment in the House, which would drain and distract the administration at the least."

Quote :

"Obama could well be reluctant to go to Congress again if Assad doubles down and continues to use chemical weapons on civilians."

Well that's not a happy decision matrix.

9/6/2013 11:49:53 PM

^^
17x birth defect rate

10x cancer rate

eat shit

9/7/2013 1:09:06 AM

Relevant Facts:

-In Operation Desert Storm, Syria was a coalition member and fought alongside the US against Iraq. Syria supplied the 6th largest manpower contingent.

- When the US knew that Iraq was planning on using chemical weapons (as confirmed by now released CIA documents), the US gave Iraq information about Iranian troop movements. Iraq attacked an iranian occupied Kurdish town with chemical weapons, killing or injuring over 10,000 people (mostly citizens). This was down with the assistance of the US, and the US had knowledge that Iraq was going to use chemical weapons.

Let's stop meddling in shit over there

[Edited on September 7, 2013 at 9:55 AM. Reason : down = done]

9/7/2013 9:54:39 AM

I'm not letting Bush off the hook here, but I think it is kinda ironic that Obama wants to go to war based off of the same chemical weapons that Bush tried to secure and used as the basis for the invasion if Iraq.

Only a moron would think that there's no possible way these are the same chemical weapons that could have been transferred out of Iraq just before we invaded.

[Edited on September 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM. Reason : agd]

9/7/2013 10:03:11 AM

where are you seeing that Syria got chemical weapons from Iraq? Because, no.

No, Syria Doesn’t Have Saddam’s Chemical Weapons
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/syria-iraq-wmd-meme/

9/7/2013 10:11:24 AM

Quote :

"these guys are pissing uranium levels 100 times above safe level, its not background levels"

source? uranium clears the system by urine in about 3 days time, so it should not be showing up in Gulf War vets.

9/7/2013 10:13:53 AM

it doesn't clear the system in 3 days apparently, and the source was already posted. but here is another one:

Quote :

"Abstract Depleted uranium was first used on a large scale as a major component of munitions and armaments employed by the U.S. armed forces during the Gulf War in 1991. In response to concern that exposure to depleted uranium may have been a cause of health problems suffered by returning veterans of that war, an already existing surveillance program following depleted uranium "friendly fire" victims was enlarged to assess the wider veteran community's exposure to depleted uranium. Between August 1998 and December 1999, 169 Gulf War veterans submitted 24-h urine samples for determination of urinary uranium concentration and questionnaires describing their potential exposures to depleted uranium while in the Gulf War theatre. Depleted uranium exposure assessment was determined from 30 separate questionnaire items condensed into 19 distinct exposure scenarios. Results of urine uranium analysis were stratified into high and low uranium groups with 0.05 microg uranium/g creatinine being the cut point and approximate upper limit of the normal population distribution. Twelve individuals (7.1%) exhibited urine uranium values in the high range, while the remaining 157 had urine uranium values in the low range. A repeat test of urine for 6 of these 12 produced uranium results in the low range for 3 of these individuals. Exposure scenarios of the high and low uranium groups were similar with the presence of retained shrapnel being the only scenario predictive of a high urine uranium value. Results emphasize the unlikely occurrence of an elevated urine uranium result and consequently any uranium-related health effects in the absence of retained depleted uranium metal fragments in the veterans."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11219540
those levels are for veterans 8 and 9 years later. levels in more recent veterans and active duty are much higher, and the levels in Iraqi and Afghan citizens is even higher than that.

[Edited on September 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM. Reason : why have you guys decided you are experts on this? just google some. ]

9/7/2013 10:21:02 AM

Pretty unlikely that the Sarin gas used by Assad came from Saddam considering that stuff has a shelf life measured in weeks/months, not years.

9/7/2013 11:20:46 AM

And them being enemies

9/7/2013 12:25:12 PM

Quote :

"Results emphasize the unlikely occurrence of an elevated urine uranium result and consequently any uranium-related health effects in the absence of retained depleted uranium metal fragments in the veterans"

that's saying that uranium does clear the urine fairly quickly unless the veteran has shrapnel fragments in him/her. it's also implying that uranium content in civilians in war-torn countries shouldn't be high unless they're somehow getting uranium into their bodies (food/water/ shrapnel)

9/7/2013 12:31:27 PM

9/7/2013 1:30:11 PM

Asians are such bad drivers, Pearl Harbor was probably an accident. Bunch of Zeros with their left blinker on.

9/7/2013 2:09:02 PM

Quote :

"^^ 17x birth defect rate 10x cancer rate eat shit"

Look fuckstick, I never said depleted uranium wasnt bad. I said its replacements were worse (and you obviously dont know shit about them).

I also said this was a technology the military is not going to go without, so if you get DU thrown out youre in for something hella worse.

Maybe you should eat shit then!

9/7/2013 2:35:54 PM

I believe we have reached the tipping point of the thread where rational debate gives way to an all out dick measuring contest.

9/7/2013 4:56:57 PM

Quote :

"Asians are such bad drivers, Pearl Harbor was probably an accident. Bunch of Zeros with their left blinker on."

rofl

9/7/2013 10:06:37 PM

So let's talk about something more meaningful...

President Obama kinda has his head in a Congressional vise here. What kind of backroom deals do you think are going on? In other words, "OK Mr. President/Speaker/Majority leader, I'll vote to authorize the strike if you'll do ____ for me/us."


The problem is that both parties are fractured over this one; you can't offer a bargaining chip to the GOP holdouts without alienating the Dem holdouts, and vice versa...unless the deals are going both ways and in secret.

9/7/2013 10:09:14 PM

Scandal as Kerry meets and dines with Assad... rumors spreading of some inside deals to try to strengthen Assad against the Islamist rebels he is fighting against!

9/8/2013 12:17:29 AM

I think, from a purely political standpoint, the problem with making a deal is who do you make it with and what do you offer? It's clear on both sides of the aisle that the leaders are having a tough time keeping the natives from getting restless. You would have to offer something with enormous appeal to garner enough support. I think the only path would be for the White House to offer the House GOP something on the scale of repealing Obamacare or massive spending cuts just to move the needle. Good luck getting that one past the Senate. I don't see them pulling that off and they really have nothing to offer the Dems. Even if they did there wouldn't be enough votes to get them there. At this point it looks like the House says no but a lot can happen in 2 weeks.

9/8/2013 12:48:44 AM

^^Seriously? The article I read indicated that picture was taken in 2011.

9/8/2013 11:16:54 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408805/John-Kerrys-cosy-dinner-Syrias-Hitler-Secretary-State-Assad-pictured-dining-Damascus.html

2009. doesn't change the knee-jerk perception of that particular image at this moment in time. see also:



[Edited on September 8, 2013 at 2:56 PM. Reason : .]

9/8/2013 2:54:58 PM

9/8/2013 3:57:33 PM

The rumsfield/saddam pic was supposedly taken several years into the iraq/iran war in which iraq initially invaded iran. Back when we supported Saddam over Ayatollah Khomeini, even when we knew that Saddam was using chemical weapons on the regular.

[Edited on September 8, 2013 at 5:36 PM. Reason : ]

9/8/2013 5:35:17 PM

Quote :

"President Obama kinda has his head in a Congressional vise here. What kind of backroom deals do you think are going on? In other words, "OK Mr. President/Speaker/Majority leader, I'll vote to authorize the strike if you'll do ____ for me/us.""

So, I'm interested in this as well. I'm of the opinion that he's seeking congressional approval so that when this goes sour, congress will also be on the hook for supporting it as well, and he'll have received a "mandate" to go ahead and won't be solely to blame.

It also appears that AIPAC is now in support of striking Syria (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/aipac-syria-96344.html), so it's definitely going to happen, and the reasoning, of course, goes right back to Iran.


[Edited on September 8, 2013 at 6:26 PM. Reason : ]

9/8/2013 6:20:27 PM

^^ weren't the wmds provided by the US?

9/8/2013 10:01:21 PM

so what happens if we hit a russian ship or base?

9/8/2013 10:07:55 PM

By mistake or intentionally?

Singer James Blunt 'prevented World War III'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11753050

Quote :

"Singer James Blunt has told the BBC how he refused an order to attack Russian troops when he was a British soldier in Kosovo. Blunt said he was willing to risk a court martial by rejecting the order from a US General. But he was backed by British Gen Sir Mike Jackson, who said: "I'm not going to have my soldiers be responsible for starting World War III." Blunt was ordered to seize an airfield, but the Russians had got there first. In an interview with BBC Radio 5 live, broadcast on Sunday, he said: "I was given the direct command to overpower the 200 or so Russians who were there. "I was the lead officer with my troop of men behind us... "The soldiers directly behind me were from the Parachute Regiment, so they're obviously game for the fight. "The direct command [that] came in from Gen Wesley Clark was to overpower them. Various words were used that seemed unusual to us. Words such as 'destroy' came down the radio.""

Click to read some more details, here is the ending.

Quote :

"If Gen Jackson had not blocked the order from Gen Clark, who as Nato Supreme Commander Europe was his superior officer, Blunt said he would still have declined to follow it, even at the risk of a court martial. He said: "There are things that you do along the way that you know are right, and those that you absolutely feel are wrong, that I think it's morally important to stand up against, and that sense of moral judgement is drilled into us as soldiers in the British army.""

Anybody know about this? So Wesley Clark ordered British soldiers to attack and destroy Russian soldiers? Wtf?

9/9/2013 2:18:01 AM

by accident a stray cruise missile hits a russian base or a destroyer sinks an unidentified russian sub

9/9/2013 8:09:29 AM

Let those sand people blow each other up. Who cares except for all the lobbyists in the American Aero-Defense industry. I'm sure they are salivating at all the profits$ from a "limited" US strike on Syria. Bombs, planes, and ordinance equals pumping up the bottom line thanks to tax payer dollars.

9/9/2013 9:33:40 AM

Quote :

"^^ weren't the wmds provided by the US?"

some were, and the US provided intelligence to Iraq letting them know about Iranian troop movements even though the US knew that Iraq planned to use chemical weapons. Iraq did use those weapons and killed thousands.

[Edited on September 9, 2013 at 10:02 AM. Reason : e]

9/9/2013 10:00:06 AM

Quote :

"that's saying that uranium does clear the urine fairly quickly unless the veteran has shrapnel fragments in him/her. it's also implying that uranium content in civilians in war-torn countries shouldn't be high unless they're somehow getting uranium into their bodies (food/water/ shrapnel)"

no, it discredits your statement that it leaves your system in 3 days because even people who had moderate or little exposure still have trace levels years after the exposure stops.

the problem that we have been discussing is all of the people who live in areas where the exposure is continuing.

9/9/2013 10:01:36 AM

Some new news this morning. And wtf, I'm like 2 hours behind most of you, someone else should have posted this!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/09/russia-syria/2785703/

Quote :

"Sergey Lavrov said Monday that if such a move would help avert a possible U.S. strike on Syria, Russia will start work "immediately" to persuade Syria to relinquish control over its chemical arsenals. Lavrov told reporters that Russia would urge Syria to concentrate its chemical weapons in certain areas under international oversight and then dismantle them."

Pretty big news IMO, and indicates that Russia is starting to loosen on their pro-Assad stance. Maybe they finally saw some evidence that convinced them he was behind the attack (which he obviously was).

9/9/2013 11:04:16 AM

the latest reports I've seen were that Assad did not direct it

9/9/2013 11:08:03 AM

The idea that elements of his military used chemical weapons on civilians without his approval/authorization is even more outlandish to me than the rebels doing it. Even if he didn't personally direct the attack doesn't' absolve him of responsibility. Hell, if it is true, and his military commanders are out there "going rogue" and ordering chem weapon strikes all willy nilly, that's a better reason for foreign intervention than anything else I've heard.

[Edited on September 9, 2013 at 11:17 AM. Reason : :]

9/9/2013 11:16:23 AM

Assad did not order Syria chemical weapons attack, says German press
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild

Quote :

"The intelligence findings were based on phone calls intercepted by a German surveillance ship operated by the BND, the German intelligence service, and deployed off the Syrian coast, Bild am Sonntag said. The intercepted communications suggested Assad, who is accused of war crimes by the west, including foreign secretary William Hague, was not himself involved in last month's attack or in other instances when government forces have allegedly used chemical weapons."

Quote :

"The German intelligence findings concerning Assad's personal role may complicate US-led efforts to persuade the international community that punitive military action is justified. They could also strengthen suspicions that Assad no longer fully controls the country's security apparatus. Addressing a closed meeting of the German parliamentary committee last week, the BND chief Gerhard Schindler said his agency shared the US view that the attack had been launched by the regime and not the rebels. But he said the spy agency had not have conclusive evidence either way, German media reported."

9/9/2013 11:24:18 AM

in regards to attacking Syria, wouldn't the attack need to be a big one? What advantage would limited strikes give?

9/9/2013 11:25:56 AM