http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11387
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html?ex=1308456000&en=6fe68cba3e016b15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4308
Originally posted by Sambo69What about all the WMD's being found in Iraq? Over 500 artillery shells with chemical weapons in the tips of them found in Iraq.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11387
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html?ex=1308456000&en=6fe68cba3e016b15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4308
With terrorist controlling these, that is not a good thing.
I wonder if you would see the first-hand affects of sarin and mustard gas, if you would change your views somewhat.
Originally posted by flyUnityBesides the deaths of innocent Iraqi's to date, how many uranium tipped projectiles has America scattered around Iraq during its invasion and occupation ?
What about all the WMD's being found in Iraq? Over 500 artillery shells with chemical weapons in the tips of them found in Iraq.
With terrorist controlling these, that is not a good thing.
I wonder if you would see the first-hand affects of sarin and mustard gas, if you would change your views somewhat.
Originally posted by Sambo69Depleted uranium, delpeted. Used for their extreme density therefore the choice in piercing armor.
Besides the deaths of innocent Iraqi's to date, how many uranium tipped projectiles has America scattered around Iraq during its invasion and occupation ?
If it were dangerous as you're implying, our troops would all be exposed to the dangers as well.
The DU dust, undetectable by the human eye lingers in the area which it is used. The tanks using this types of ordnance typically enters or travels through the damage path. So they too would be exposed to the supposed dangers of DU ordance, which is not the case.
Originally posted by sword4damoclesSo why the huge spike in (especially childhood) cancers post-1991?
Depleted uranium, delpeted. Used for their extreme density therefore the choice in piercing armor.
If it were dangerous as you're implying, our troops would all be exposed to the dangers as well.
The DU dust, undetectable by the human eye lingers in the area which it is used. The tanks using this types of ordnance typically enters or travel ...[text shortened]... th. So they too would be exposed to the supposed dangers of DU ordance, which is not the case.
Originally posted by scottishinnz1 - Huge increase in cancer rates just for the Iraqis huh. But not for us? You can skew whatever data you want, anyone can.
In Iraq. I doubt you can blame it on Saddam, since the depleted Uranium shells used during the first gulf war (and left lying around) have been directly linked to huge increases in cancer rates.
2 - I have a good friend and co-worker who is our area representative for the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) and I've spoken with him about this subject on a few occasions and I'm convinced that the DU ordnance after-effects are not as the propagandists would have you believe.
3 - Who says they are "directly linked"? Iraq? Outside organizations? Do what every studies supporting this claim take into account that Saddam was also up to mischief in his country?
4 - You failed to mention the US soldiers who had to go through areas saturated with un-noticable DU residue which would settle in the lungs. Nothing to really support this either, huh. Just a case of one side saying one thing and another side saying another thing.
Just like these forums.
I forgot to mention, the infrastructure of Iraq expecially the water, waste management, safe and pure food sources all can contribute to your claims.
1 - Huge increase in cancer rates just for the Iraqis huh. But not for us? You can skew whatever data you want, anyone can.
2 - I have a good friend and co-worker who is our area representative for the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) and I've spoken with him about this subject on a few occasions and I'm convinced that the DU ordnance after-effects are not as the propagandists would have you believe.
3 - Who says they are "directly linked"? Iraq? Outside organizations? Do what every studies supporting this claim take into account that Saddam was also up to mischief in his country?
4 - You failed to mention the US soldiers who had to go through areas saturated with un-noticable DU residue which would settle in the lungs. Nothing to really support this either, huh. Just a case of one side saying one thing and another side saying another thing.