Americas list of terror

[James]

America's list of terrorism

Ever since the United States Army massacred 300 Lakotas in 1890,
American
forces have intervened elsewhere around the globe 100 times. Indeed the
United States has sent troops abroad or militarily struck other
countries'
territory 216 times since independence from Britain. Since 1945 the
United
States has intervened in more than 20 countries throughout the world.

Since World War II, the United States actually dropped bombs on 23
countries. These include: China 1945-46, Korea 1950-53, China 1950-53,
Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1958, Cuba 1959-60, Guatemala 1960, Congo
1964,
Peru 1965, Laos 1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70, Guatemala
1967-69, Grenada 1983, Lebanon 1984, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s,
Nicaragua 1980s, Panama 1989, Iraq 1991-1999, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan
1998,
and Yugoslavia 1999.

Post World War II, the United States has also assisted in over 20
different
coups throughout the world, and the CIA was responsible for half a
dozen
assassinations of political heads of state.

The following is a comprehensive summary of the imperialist strategy of
the
United States over the
span of the past century:

Argentina - 1890 - Troops sent to Buenos Aires to
protect business interests.

Chile - 1891 - Marines sent to Chile and clashed with
nationalist rebels.

Haiti - 1891 - American troops suppress a revolt by
Black workers on United States-claimed Navassa Island.


Hawaii - 1893 - Navy sent to Hawaii to overthrow the
independent kingdom - Hawaii annexed by the United
States.

Nicaragua - 1894 - Troops occupied Bluefields, a city
on the Caribbean Sea, for a month.

China - 1894-95 - Navy, Army, and Marines landed
during the Sino-Japanese War.

Korea - 1894-96 - Troops kept in Seoul during the war.


Panama - 1895 - Army, Navy, and Marines landed in the
port city of Corinto.

China - 1894-1900 - Troops occupied China during the
Boxer Rebellion.

Philippines - 1898-1910 - Navy and Army troops landed
after the Philippines fell during the Spanish-American
War; 600,000 Filipinos were killed.

Cuba - 1898-1902 - Troops seized Cuba in the
Spanish-American War; the United States still
maintains troops at Guantanamo Bay today.

Puerto Rico - 1898 - present - Troops seized Puerto
Rico in the Spanish-American War and still occupy
Puerto Rico today.

Nicaragua - 1898 - Marines landed at the port of San
Juan del Sur.

Samoa - 1899 - Troops landed as a result over the
battle for succession to the throne.

Panama - 1901-14 - Navy supported the revolution when
Panama claimed independence from Colombia. American
troops have occupied the Canal Zone since 1901 when
construction for the canal began.

Honduras - 1903 - Marines landed to intervene during a
revolution.

Dominican Rep 1903-04 - Troops landed to protect
American interests during a revolution.

Korea - 1904-05 - Marines landed during the
Russo-Japanese War.

Cuba - 1906-09 - Troops landed during an election.

Nicaragua - 1907 - Troops landed and a protectorate
was set up.

Honduras - 1907 - Marines landed during Honduras' war
with Nicaragua.

Panama - 1908 - Marines sent in during Panama's
election.

Nicaragua - 1910 - Marines landed for a second time in
Bluefields and Corinto.

Honduras - 1911 - Troops sent in to protect American
interests during Honduras' civil war.

China - 1911-41 - Navy and troops sent to China during
continuous flare-ups.

Cuba - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American
interests in Havana.

Panama - 1912 - Marines landed during Panama's
election.

Honduras - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American
interests.

Nicaragua - 1912-33 - Troops occupied Nicaragua and
fought guerrillas during its 20-year civil war.

Mexico - 1913 - Navy evacuated Americans during
revolution.

Dominican Rep 1914 - Navy fought with rebels over
Santo Domingo.

Mexico - 1914-18 - Navy and troops sent in to
intervene against nationalists.

Haiti - 1914-34 - Troops occupied Haiti after a
revolution and occupied Haiti for 19 years.

Dominican Rep 1916-24 - Marines occupied the Dominican
Republic for eight years.

Cuba - 1917-33 - Troops landed and occupied Cuba for
16 years; Cuba became an economic protectorate.

World War I - 1917-18 - Navy and Army sent to Europe
to fight the Axis powers.

Russia - 1918-22 - Navy and troops sent to eastern
Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution; Army made five
landings.

Honduras - 1919 - Marines sent during Honduras'
national elections.

Guatemala - 1920 - Troops occupied Guatemala for two
weeks during a union strike.

Turkey - 1922 - Troops fought nationalists in Smyrna.

China - 1922-27 - Navy and Army troops deployed during
a nationalist revolt.

Honduras - 1924-25 - Troops landed twice during a
national election.

Panama - 1925 - Troops sent in to put down a general
strike.

China - 1927-34 - Marines sent in and stationed for
seven years throughout China.

El Salvador - 1932 - Naval warships deployed during
the FMLN revolt under Marti.

World War II - 1941-45 - Military fought the Axis
powers: Japan, Germany, and Italy.

Yugoslavia - 1946 - Navy deployed off the coast of
Yugoslavia in response to the downing of an American
plane.

Uruguay - 1947 - Bombers deployed as a show of
military force.

Greece - 1947-49 - United States operations insured a
victory for the far right in national "elections."

Germany - 1948 - Military deployed in response to the
Berlin blockade; the Berlin airlift lasts 444 days.

Philippines - 1948-54 - The CIA directed a civil war
against the Filipino Huk revolt.

Puerto Rico - 1950 - Military helped crush an
independence rebellion in Ponce.

Korean War - 1951-53 - Military sent in during the
war.

Iran - 1953 - The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of
democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah
to power.

Vietnam - 1954 - The United States offered weapons to
the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the
Viet Minh.

Guatemala - 1954 - The CIA overthrew the
democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas
in power.

Egypt - 1956 - Marines deployed to evacuate foreigners
after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal.

Lebanon - 1958 - Navy supported an Army occupation of
Lebanon during its civil war.

Panama - 1958 - Troops landed after Panamanians
demonstrations threatened the Canal Zone.

Vietnam - 1950s-75 - Vietnam War.

Cuba - 1961 - The CIA-directed Bay of Pigs invasions
failed to overthrow the Castro government.

Cuba - 1962 - The Navy quarantines Cuba during the
Cuban Missile Crisis.

Laos - 1962 - Military occupied Laos during its civil
war against the Pathet Lao guerrillas.

Panama - 1964 - Troops sent in and Panamanians shot
while protesting the United States presence in the
Canal Zone.

Indonesia - 1965 - The CIA orchestrated a military
coup.

Dominican Rep- 1965-66 - Troops deployed during a
national election.

Guatemala - 1966-67 - Green Berets sent in.

Cambodia - 1969-75 - Military sent in after the
Vietnam War expanded into Cambodia.

Oman - 1970 - Marines landed to direct a possible
invasion into Iran.

Laos - 1971-75 - Americans carpet-bomb the countryside
during Laos' civil war.

Chile - 1973 - The CIA orchestrated a coup, killing
President Allende who had been popularly elected. The
CIA helped to establish a military regime under
General Pinochet.

Cambodia - 1975 - Twenty-eight Americans killed in an
effort to retrieve the crew of the Mayaquez, which had
been seized.

Angola - 1976-92 - The CIA backed South African rebels
fighting against Marxist Angola.

Iran - 1980 - Americans aborted a rescue attempt to
liberate 52 hostages seized in the Teheran embassy.

Libya - 1981 - American fighters shoot down two Libyan
fighters.

El Salvador - 1981-92 - The CIA, troops, and advisers
aid in El Salvador's war against the FMLN.

Nicaragua - 1981-90 - The CIA and NSC directed the
Contra War against the Sandinistas.

Lebanon - 1982-84 - Marines occupied Beirut during
Lebanon's civil war; 241 were killed in the American
barracks and Reagan "redeployed" the troops to the
Mediterranean.

Honduras - 1983-89 - Troops sent in to build bases
near the Honduran border.

Grenada - 1983-84 - American invasion overthrew the
Maurice Bishop government.

Iran - 1984 - American fighters shot down two Iranian
planes over the Persian Gulf.

Libya - 1986 - American fighters hit targets in and
around the capital city of Tripoli.

Bolivia - 1986 - The Army assisted government troops
on raids of cocaine areas.

Iran - 1987-88 - The United States intervened on the
side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

Libya - 1989 - Navy shot down two more Libyan jets.

Virgin Islands - 1989 - Troops landed during unrest
among Virgin Island peoples.

Philippines - 1989 - Air Force provided air cover for
government during coup.

Panama - 1989-90 - 27,000 Americans landed in
overthrow of President Noriega; over 2,000 Panama
civilians were killed.

Liberia - 1990 - Troops entered Liberia to evacuate
foreigners during civil war.

Saudi Arabia - 1990-91 - American troops sent to Saudi
Arabia, which was a staging area in the war against
Iraq.

Kuwait - 1991 - Troops sent into Kuwait to turn back
Saddam Hussein.

Somalia - 1992-94 - Troops occupied Somalia during
civil war.

Bosnia - 1993-95 - Air Force jets bombed "no-fly zone"
during civil war in Yugoslavia.

Haiti - 1994-96 - American troops and Navy provided a
blockade against Haiti's military government. The CIA
restored Aristide to power.

Zaire - 1996-97 - Marines sent into Rwanda Hutus'
refugee camps in the area where the Congo revolution
began.

Albania - 1997 - Troops deployed during evacuation of
foreigners.

Sudan - 1998 - American missiles destroyed a
pharmaceutical complex where alleged nerve gas
components were manufactured.

Afghanistan - 1998 - Missiles launched towards alleged
Afghan terrorist training camps.

Yugoslavia - 1999 - Bombings and missile attacks
carried out by the United States in conjunction with
NATO in the 11 week war against Milosevic.

Iraq - 1998-2001 - Missiles launched into Baghdad and
other large Iraq cities for four days. American jets
enforced "no-fly zone" and continued to hit Iraqi
targets since December 1998.

These **100** instances of American military
intervention did not include times when the United
States:

(1) deployed military police overseas;

(2) mobilized the National Guard;

(3) sent Navy ships off the coast of numerous
countries as a show of strength;

(4) sent additional troops to areas where Americans
were already stationed;

(5) carried out covert actions where American forces
were not under the direct rule of an American command;


(6) used small hostage rescue units;

(7) used American pilots to fly foreign planes;

(8) carried out military training and advisory
programs which did not involve direct combat.


U. S. Government Assassination Plots
====================================

Following is a list of prominent foreign leaders whose assassination
(or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since
the end of Second World War. The list does not include several
assassinations in various parts of the world carried out by anti-Castro
Cubans employed by CIA and headquartered in the United States:

LIST A: NON MUSLIMS

1949 - KIm Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950's - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in
West Germany
1955 - Jose' Antonio Remon, President of Panama
1950's Chou En-lai, Prime Minister of China, several attempts
on his life
1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premiere of North Korea
1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 - Jawar Lal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1959 and 1963 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1950s-70s - Jose Figueres, President of Costa Rica,
two attempts on his life
1961 - Francois "Papa Doc"Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba , Prime Minister of Congo (Zaire)
1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, more than
15 attempts on his life
1960s - Raul Castro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 - Francisco Caamanao, Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965 - Pierre Ngendandumwe, Prime Minister of Burundi
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 - Salvadore Allende, President of Chile
1970 - General Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s and 1981 - Gen. Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - The nine commandantes of the Sandanista
National Directorate
1980's - Dr. Gerald Bull, Canadian Ballistics Scientist
assassinated by Mossad in Belgium.

Partial List of Muslim Leaders Assassinated or
Attempted Assassinations
1950's Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1960 Brigadier General, Abdul Karim Kassem, Leader of Iraq
1980-86 Muammar Qaddafi, Leader of Libya, several plots and
attempts upon his life
1982 Ayatullah Khomeini, Leader of Iran
1983 General Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan army Commander
1985 Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadllallah, Lebanese Shiite Leader
(80 people killed in that attempt)
1991 Saddam Hussein, Leader of Iraq
Reference: Blum, William, "KILLING HOPE - U.S. Military and
CIA Interventions Since World War II," Appendix III
U.S. Government Assassination Plots, page 453,
Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine 1995. ISBN 1-56751-052-3

[Michael De Panama]

Panama - 1989-90 - 27,000 Americans landed in
overthrow of President Noriega; over 2,000 Panama
civilians were killed.

Yeah, and not to mention all the many more killed once America packed up and left Panama without a government.

[James]

I'm sure that there is a "rational explanation", just as there was a rational explanation for the Nazis killing socialists.

[American Kid]

Everybody, what's your favorite extra value meal at McDonald's?

-AK

[James]

AK - i appreciate you and everything, i have respect for you. But please don't turn my thread into one of those types of things. Can you argue this all down? This is the real serious shit. This explains my avatar.

[Michael De Panama]

Yeah. I want to see a legitimate response from the cappies.

[American Kid]

No, that was the only response I could think of (and I read your whole post). It's the best I got. You can take it for what it reads, or see it for what it is........

I do appreciate you also, James. And I appreciate the nice things you had to say. Thank you.

This has been a while coming, so I'd like to take the oppertunity finally to say your avatar (though impressive in it's "statement", seriously) is unbelievably offensive to me. Again, I'm a speechnick, I'm not attacking you. I would take a bullet through my heart to defend your right to use it, but it's the only one on the site that I fucking hate. How dare you? Brittish, huh? Well your welcome. I have many family members who fought and died in the war to prevent your countrymen from becoming absorbed like plankton into the third riech. You could counter, saying that's ancient history, and I would defer to the rant you just posted to start this thread.

Your numbers and stats are taken out of context. Of course though, no one can debate their legitimacy. Check them out, anyone. The kid's story passes inspection.

But your reaction to them is outrage and agitative. While mine is more reality-based. One could say those same numbers and stats could add up to definitive proof as to why we're the greatest nation on the planet..........

Given the cess-pool that this world is, however, it wouldn't be saying much.

Mine is the number six. With extra mayonaise and no onions. And a coke, please. Super-size.

-AK


(Edited by American Kid at 12:00 am on July 27, 2002)

[Ernesto Guevara]

America just wants to conquer the world. it wants to get involved with evryting and it blames evryting on terrorism. This decade america has invaded countries wenever they had a recession period, like Iraq in 1991, yugoslavia in 1998 and afghanistan in 2001. This is the american government's way of earnin money and boostin its economy. And they are fighting the war on terror, wich seems more to me like a war against islam.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Response to james:

Sometimes, as a function of its sovereignty, the US must undertake just action to eradicate certain regimes, address undesirables, and do what is in the best interests of the american people.

The US government and the American people apologize for any collateral damage and/or
compromising of "incidentals" that resulted from said actions.

These actions, however, are not terrorism, they are actions of a sovereign nation
ensuring and protecting its own economic and strategic interests.


Response To AK: #4, with a coke, supersize.

How can you be down for anything but a double QP w/ queso, dude?

"Anything less would be uncivilized."

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 12:09 am on July 27, 2002)

[Capitalist Fighter]

James, socialist nations such as the USSR, China and even Cuba have partaken in imperialistic activities and caused colleral and other forms of damage. Here is a list i prepared for everyone. :)

Cuba violating the soverignty of Bolivia, Congo, Angola
USSR - all the easter european satellite states who were annexed by the USSR and had their ideology forced down their throats. They included Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Albania.
Vietnam - invaded Cambodia plus had skirmishes and battles with China.
China - battles with Vietnam and Cambodia, invaded Tibet, sent 1,000,000 troops to Korea
North Korea - tried to invade south and annex them
ET CETERA
The socialist nations are just as bad as the U.S., and please don't go on and say they weren't socialist and you don't follow them because then i could rejoinder by saying the U.S. isn't a form of capitalism, (ie imperialism and intervention) that i support and therefore i cannot be held accountable for its actions. If that was indeed the case then reality would serve no purpose and we would be debating theory. Theory manifests itself in the real world through practice. Practice shows communism failed and a convoluted form of capitalism succeeds.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:05 am on July 27, 2002
Response to james:

Sometimes, as a function of its sovereignty, the US must undertake just action to eradicate certain regimes, address undesirables, and do what is in the best interests of the american people.

The US government and the American people apologize for any collateral damage and/or
compromising of "incidentals" that resulted from said actions.

These actions, however, are not terrorism, they are actions of a sovereign nation
ensuring and protecting its own economic and strategic interests.


Response To AK: #4, with a coke, supersize.

How can you be down for anything but a double QP w/ queso, dude?

"Anything less would be uncivilized."

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 12:09 am on July 27, 2002)



question why was Salvador Aiende killed? He was a socialist but the people liked him, then the US set up a military dictatorship.


would you rather have a democraticaly elected socialist president or a facist military leader?

THe US may disagree but it really is none of their buisness

[Capitalist Fighter]

I don't agree with what happened to Allende but the people did not like him. The government was broke by his 3 year in office which was due to the embargo the U.S. had placed but nonetheless he wasn't popular. If you are against overthrowing an elected president or head of state with violence then i hope you don't condone Che Guevara's actions in Bolivia where the president had just recently being voted in. Also Lenin's decision to dissolve the Constitutent Assembly of 1917 when the Bolsheviks received something like 1/4 of the votes and the majority party was banned soon afterwards.

[Lardlad95]

but the US wasn't leading a revolution they did it solely on the grounds that he was socialist.

And I was pretty sure they did like him

[James]

Now i'm pritty disapointed at the response this thread has got. This is a perfect example as to american hypocricy and evil (government that is, because i like alot of americans). So i don't want to see any more "typical leftist, can't back up their ideas". This is like the "trump", and no one can argue it down. Which, proves that america is a terrorist state. End of debate?

[American Kid]

No, it's a stupid debate.

What do you think, America owns the "monopoly" on warfare? We're the only ones with guns and helicopters?

What do you think's been going on Europe for the last two thousand years? Again, all that shit is taken out of context. I think it speaks a thousand posts that not too many people have responded.

-AK

[Nateddi]

if you are goign to copy and paste a list of military operations labeled as "terror", make certain you erase events such as WWII and other justified military deployments.

[canikickit]

What about the invasion of Mexico?
"Manifest Destiny"?

[canikickit]

The British Gov't has done some pretty shitty things over the years.....as have the Spanish, French, Dutch, Flemish, German, Russian, etc., etc...
America is the Bastion of Chaos, but hey at least they didn't opress my country for 800 years.

[James]

I can't find any recent british stuff, i'm sure there must though.

[James]

No, it's a stupid debate.

In your opinion.

What do you think, America owns the "monopoly" on warfare? We're the only ones with guns and helicopters?


What makes you ask that?

What do you think's been going on Europe for the last two thousand years?

Yes, but whats happened recently on such a scale? I'd say that europe has changed, and became very very peaceful.

Again, all that shit is taken out of context. I think it speaks a thousand posts that not too many people have responded.


I wouldn't be at all surprised if some numbers have been exagerated, but it still stands there. America, by all rights, is a first class war criminal. Why arn't they classed as being one? Its very hard (in fact i'd say impossibly) to argue the list done - thus why there were hardly any replies.

if you are goign to copy and paste a list of military operations labeled as "terror", make certain you erase events such as WWII and other justified military deployments.

WW2, why did america get involved? This can't be covered here, but many americans were pro nazi (like the british royal family i suppose). Many "war crimes" were commited during the wars, on every side, by everyone (i think). For example, did you know that the free french should have been tried as war criminals?

"justified military deployments" Thats a matter of opinion though isn't it. For example i may be a Quaker for all you know. Name some on the list that are, in your opinion, justified military deployments. I'll go into WW2 more if you really wish.

[Stormin Norman]

I don't discuss warfare with someone who fails to understand its purposes. If CI wanted to talk about military stategy I would be happy to ablige him. There is no sense in talking to a pacifist on such matters.

[James]

Okay, well tell me. I'm not a die hard pacifist, i do believe that at times violence is the only answer - so go on. Explain, please.

[Stormin Norman]

Then narrow the scope of the discussion down to a specific point. Do you want to discuss the massacre of the Indians or the differences between terrorism and legitimate military actions.

[James]

The reason i want to know is this.

War On Terrorism. A supposed war, on all terrorism, around the world. Now how can America carry this out? When their own state is guilty of such actions, around the world, ever sinse its existance?

So is this a bogus war? How is it justified, for another terrorist to go after another in a "war on terrorism"?

Or do you think that the "war on terrorism" is a load of bull, designed so that america can finaly sort out "unfinished buisness"? I'm confused at all this, and really can't see any logic whats so ever. Or am i just really retarded, And am missing some obvious facts somewhere?

[Stormin Norman]

First of all, nothing that I saw on that list constituted terrorism by its true definition. I am not saying that the U.S. has never engage in terrorism to meet its political objectives. If you could spell it out for me giving me the specifics of just one of those cases, and why you believe it to be terrorism I could concede on that point and we could move on to the rest of your questions.


(Edited by Stormin Norman at 1:16 am on July 29, 2002)

[James]

Well first of all, what do YOU count as being terrorism?

[Stormin Norman]

The use of violence or terror (fear), on a civilian population in order to accomplish a political, religious, or social objective. Of course, collateral damage does not count, for it has to be accompanied by the deliberate killing of civilians.


(Edited by Stormin Norman at 2:39 am on July 29, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

I am sorry. I was mistaken when I said nothing on that list pertained to terrorist actions. In fact, the destruction of the American Indian does constitute terrorism. This is black mark on our history and I would not have condoned it in that time period. Since I was not a guilty party in those actions I do not feel guilt. I am sympathetic to the destruction of the Native Americans, but do not share the blaim simply because I happen to live in America.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 1:25 am on July 29, 2002)

[James]

Okay. i'll use iraq as my first exmaple.

During the war there, "we" used very nasty weapons that left all kind of sh*t in the air, and in the ground.

I'm not going to say this war on act of terrorism though, for this was "war" (plus lots more stuff happened during this war, but lets say these were all accidents).

However the people of iraq needed much more medical treatment than before due to the increase in cacners etc.

The UN (which britain and the US basically command) has restricted the amounts of goods, and what type of goods, that can be imported into iraq. Why is this?


Our strife is with Saddam. Yes? For he is the dictator. Its not a democracy, the people can not be held responsible for their dictators actions.

Do you agree?

Also, the people of iraq can't rise up to saddam, for that would be a war crime (do you wish me to prove this point?). Also, why should they? After what happened last time.

What i'm saying is that the PEOPLE of iraq aren't to blame. This war wasn't about them, it was about "intrests" and saddam. Agreed?

So why are the iraqi people being made to pay for their leaders actions, and western intrests in the country? Before the gulf war, iraq had a much higher standard of living, lower infant mortality rates, longer chance of living old, and had a proper medical service. This is now all in tatters. Why? To stop saddam from making bombs?

Saddam isn't being touched by these sanctions. You think his standard of living has decressed at all?

These sanctions are so bad, alot of the UN staff involved with dealing out rations in Iraq etc have quit, on moral grounds.

I won't go any further, i'm sure i've made some kind of a point. ie, the UN are targetting civillians, to "accomplish a political, religous, or social objective". For Saddam is the dictator, he is the man responsible. He is the only one in iraq who isn't suffering from the UN's actions.

[Stormin Norman]

"During the war there, "we" used very nasty weapons that left all kind of sh*t in the air, and in the ground."

Are you talking about our detonation of there chemical and biological weapons plants? You must be because we never used anything other than conventional means to prosecute this war. Don't you think it was necessary for us to destroy Iraq's capability concerning weapons of mass destruction?

"I'm not going to say this war on act of terrorism though, for this was "war" (plus lots more stuff happened during this war, but lets say these were all accidents)."

Your right in thinking that this does not constitute terrorism, because it was a reaction to the aggressions brought by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. American oil interests where in question, and we were asked by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to aid in the war effort.

"However the people of iraq needed much more medical treatment than before due to the increase in cacners etc."

Do you think it is our responsibilty to provide such provisions, or should that be left to their government.

"The UN (which britain and the US basically command) has restricted the amounts of goods, and what type of goods, that can be imported into iraq. Why is this?"

Because that would be rewarding that nation for starting a war. We have sanctions on that government and our own resources are limited. Right now, shortages in the vacine supply exist in our own country. This is probably due to the fact that we give it out, free of charge.

"Our strife is with Saddam. Yes? For he is the dictator. Its not a democracy, the people can not be held responsible for their dictators actions."

Yes they can be held responsible for the actions of their leader. They are the ones who allowed him to gain power in the first place and are guilty by ommision. Such a man should have been ousted by the people. To answer your question I do not agree.

"Also, the people of iraq can't rise up to saddam, for that would be a war crime (do you wish me to prove this point?). Also, why should they? After what happened last time."

Why can't they? How would that be a war crime? Please prove that point. They should oust him in order to secure a democratic government free from the kind of sanctions that Saddam has brought onto the people. What happened last time? Are you talking about the Kurds?

"So why are the iraqi people being made to pay for their leaders actions, and western intrests in the country? Before the gulf war, iraq had a much higher standard of living, lower infant mortality rates, longer chance of living old, and had a proper medical service. This is now all in tatters. Why? To stop saddam from making bombs?"

Why? Because they put a megalomaniac in power, which represents a great threat to the civilian population in America. Because Saddam is to busy using his precious oil money building Mosques devoted to himself. Did you know that he had a Koran written in his own blood? He donated 20 something liters of blood over the course of three months for this purpose. How is it the fault of the US government that Saddam does not care enough about his own people to provide simple medical care? I agree sanctions weren;'t the way to go. Fact is, the bleeding hearts in Bush I's administration convince him not to kill Saddam for fear that it would create some 'vacuum'. Colin Powell was the most staunchly oppossed to the removal of Saddam. We had a chance to kill him, but tainted liberal thinking got in the way.

"Saddam isn't being touched by these sanctions. You think his standard of living has decressed at all?"

No it hasn't has it. That only proves the point that we made a mistake by not killing him when we had the chance. Don't you think he could afford to feed and cloth his people with all that oil money? He choose to let them die, so he can create an enemy in the minds of his people. This is an excellent way of generating anti-American sentiment and remains the reason for such devastation.

"I won't go any further, i'm sure i've made some kind of a point. ie, the UN are targetting civillians, to "accomplish a political, religous, or social objective". For Saddam is the dictator, he is the man responsible. He is the only one in iraq who isn't suffering from the UN's actions."

No it is not the U.N. that has created such conditions. It is Saddam himself use starves his people to demostrate how evil the US is and continue his stranglehold over the power structure in Iraq. Saddam is the party who is guilty of terrorism. If you what humanitarianism in Iraq, I say you should support the removal of Saddam Hussien. Be a supporter of the US going back in to do what the liberals prevented us from doing in the first place. Let's kill that mother fucker, and help the people feed themselves.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 1:58 am on July 29, 2002)

[James]

Are you talking about our detonation of there chemical and biological weapons plants? You must be because we never used anything other than conventional means to prosecute this war. Don't you think it was necessary for us to destroy Iraq's capability concerning weapons of mass destruction?


I'm on about the uranium in our tank shells etc. The background radiation count is dramtically higher their now due to this. But as i said, i'm not going to talk about the gulf wars, because they were declared wars, so are thus mainly irrelevent to this debate.

Your right in thinking that this does not constitute terrorism, because it was a reaction to the aggressions brought by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. American oil interests where in question, and we were asked by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to aid in the war effort.

America approved of saddam, at first. ie, when he was fighting against the "evil islamic state of iran". Saddam wouldn't have got into power if it hadn't been for the CIA etc.

The CIA brought the Ba'ath Party to power
The CIA helped Saddam personally
The CIA provided financial aid during the war with IRAN
They protected him from internal coups d'etat.

All this goes back to the early 1960's. Know and understand this fact; Saddam was america's man.

Of course this was up untill the day he invaded kuwati in August 1990.

John Kelly (US assitant scretary of state) visited baghdad in 1989, he told Saddam - "You are a force for moderation in the region, and the United States wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq"

This was just after the Iraqi victory over iran, which resulted in more than a million casualties on both sides.

The state department even refused to condemn saddam, when presented with facts showing that iraq had used gas against irainian soldiers and kurdish CIVILLIANS (sponsered terrorism?).


Do you think it is our responsibilty to provide such provisions, or should that be left to their government.


Hey! i don't want you thinking that i support Saddam in ANY way first of all. You said that in reply to "However the people of iraq needed much more medical treatment than before due to the increase in cacners etc."

When i said this, i meant that due to the gulf war, more medicines and beds were needed. Full stop.

The UN STOPPED alot of stuff from going into iraq, because they can be used in bombs etc. Thats what i meant. I was making a point that the UN trade blocks were killing civillians.

Because that would be rewarding that nation for starting a war. We have sanctions on that government and our own resources are limited. Right now, shortages in the vacine supply exist in our own country. This is probably due to the fact that we give it out, free of charge.


The Iraqi people didn't invade. The dictator ordered it.

Again your going back to "shortages". I suggest you do some research into the current state of the Iraqi medical services - they are siverally crippled due to sanctions.

Yes they can be held responsible for the actions of their leader. They are the ones who allowed him to gain power in the first place and are guilty by ommision. Such a man should have been ousted by the people. To answer your question I do not agree.


See above. So you think the Iraqi people are to blame? For their dictators actions?

So why can't i blame you for the deaths of all those native americans? Answer - because YOU were nothing to do with it. Something beyond your control was the cause.

Why can't they? How would that be a war crime? Please prove that point. They should oust him in order to secure a democratic government free from the kind of sanctions that Saddam has brought onto the people. What happened last time? Are you talking about the Kurds?

------------
4th HAGUE CONVENTION

Articles 1 and 2 prohibit guerrilla warfare, stating that belligerants must be "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates... have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance... carry arms openly... and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war".
-------------
Thus resistance movements are illegal.
----------------
Article 43 requires collaboration with occupation governments. "The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country".
------------
So by law the people are required to try and make peace, without rising to strike the occupational government (which is how i think i'll see the iraqi government from now on).

As i have also stated the CIA have protected Saddam from internal coups.

I was stating though that why should they raise against saddam now? They did whilst GWB's father was in power - and what happened? They were betrayed. We left them, and Saddam delt with them (in accordance to the Law - see above -).

Why? Because they put a megalomaniac in power, which represents a great threat to the civilian population in America.

ahem, see above.

Because Saddam is to busy using his precious oil money building Mosques devoted to himself. Did you know that he had a Koran written in his own blood? He donated 20 something liters of blood over the course of three months for this purpose. How is it the fault of the US government that Saddam does not care enough about his own people to provide simple medical care? I agree sanctions weren;'t the way to go. Fact is, the bleeding hearts in Bush I's administration convince him not to kill Saddam for fear that it would create some 'vacuum'. Colin Powell was the most staunchly oppossed to the removal of Saddam. We had a chance to kill him, but tainted liberal thinking got in the way.


See above.

No it hasn't has it.

Bing.

That only proves the point that we made a mistake by not killing him when we had the chance.

Or maybe it proves that america should stop backing right winged dictators. Matter of opinion i suppose.

Don't you think he could afford to feed and cloth his people with all that oil money? He choose to let them die, so he can create an enemy in the minds of his people. This is an excellent way of generating anti-American sentiment and remains the reason for such devastation.

Partial Bing.

No it is not the U.N. that has created such conditions. It is Saddam himself use starves his people to demostrate how evil the US is and continue his stranglehold over the power structure in Iraq.

Weak ping. No its americas fault for involving its self with right winged groups in the first place.

Saddam is the party who is guilty of terrorism.

"They know we own their country...we dictate the way they live and talk. And thats whats great about America right now. Its a good thing, especially when there's alot of oil out there we need."

Brigadier-general William Looney, US air force, director of the bombing of iraq.

Again i will also point out that the CIA helped him into power, helped him stay in such a position, and even provided him with tech;

"We knew about their bomb programme but saddam was our ally..." Said a former Bush Administrator.

America KNEW that advanced nuclear reactors were being shipped to Iraq. When a US department of Energy official discovered this, and alerted his superiors, he was moved to another job. This was whilst saddam was preparing to invade kuwait.

If you what humanitarianism in Iraq, I say you should support the removal of Saddam Hussien.

I do, but what for? What crime has HE commited, that he can be legally be taken down for?

Be a supporter of the US going back in to do what the liberals prevented us from doing in the first place.

Don't blame liberals for the republicans mess.

Let's kill that mother fucker,

No, i'd rather he lived a long life, in a small horrible little cell somehwere very very very hot and uncomfortable.

and help the people feed themselves.

hehe
[/b]

[Stormin Norman]

"I'm on about the uranium in our tank shells etc. The background radiation count is dramtically higher their now due to this. But as i said, i'm not going to talk about the gulf wars, because they were declared wars, so are thus mainly irrelevent to this debate."

-Maybe that is because of Iraq's new nuclear weapons program. Depleted Uranium poses little threat to an entire population. If the radiation levels were so terribly dangerous, do you think that we would let our soldiers handle those rounds without protective gear? Think about it. Your buying into typical Z-magazine bullshit.

"America approved of saddam, at first. ie, when he was fighting against the "evil islamic state of iran". Saddam wouldn't have got into power if it hadn't been for the CIA etc."

-True we used Saddam to meet our own objectives, but everyone knew he was a problem. That does not alleviate the citizens' responsibility to remove him from power. I doubt that our presence in Iraq was strong enough to prevent such a movement.

-International law preventing resistance should be ignore like all other international law. The Hague really doesn't have jurisdiction over independent nation state.
If you lived under a ruler that killed its people, would you concern yourself with such pretentious bull-plop? I doubt it.

[James]

-Maybe that is because of Iraq's new nuclear weapons program. Depleted Uranium poses little threat to an entire population. If the radiation levels were so terribly dangerous, do you think that we would let our soldiers handle those rounds without protective gear? Think about it. Your buying into typical Z-magazine bullshit.


Ahem. I'm not buying into any bullshit, and i'll be greatful if you'd show more respect to my opinions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/story/0,...,419882,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/story/0,7369,419882,00.html)

and i quote...


What is DU and what is it used for?
Depleted uranium is essentially a waste product of nuclear power generation. It is mildly radioactive and, more importantly, immensely dense. It is installed in tank-busting shells, which it helps to punch through even modern high-tech armour...How often are they used, and where?
Apart from training exercises, DU shells have been fired in anger in two main conflicts: Operation Desert Storm in the Gulf in 1991, and more recently in the Balkans.

How many were fired?
More than 100,000 DU shells were fired during the Gulf war, to knock out Iraqi armour and strongpoints. More than 30,000 rounds were fired by Nato forces during the 1999 Kosovo conflict, most of them by US tank-busting A10 ground support jets. Around 10,000 rounds were fired in operations around Sarajevo in the latter stages of allied operations in Bosnia.



-True we used Saddam to meet our own objectives,

So you aprove of this?

If this is true, then why did you alow him to carry out bomb tech research, even though;

everyone knew he was a problem.

Again, i'm confused. This doesn't make sense.

That does not alleviate the citizens' responsibility to remove him from power.

I'm sure you can do a little search on yahoo or something to help you with this - go find out about the iraqi resistance fighters during the gulf war.

They did try, but what were they supposed to do after we abandoned them? Do you suggest that they openly oppose saddam? And loose all their rations?

-International law preventing resistance should be ignore like all other international law. The Hague really doesn't have jurisdiction over independent nation state.
If you lived under a ruler that killed its people, would you concern yourself with such pretentious bull-plop? I doubt it.


So you are saying that we should use the hague law when it suits us? To try "war criminals" (ie any of our enemies) and sort out our little messes, but to simply ignore hague law when the situation arises?

Although i do agree - this law sucks. But this law has undoubtably kept both of our countries safe in the past.

[Stormin Norman]

Let's get back to the depleted Uranium issue. Your source was accurate, but it still fails to prove the point you were trying to make. Here is a source that might help you in your search.

periodictable (http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/U.html)

Specifically, you should look at the TWA (time wieghted average exposure level), the STEL (short term exposure limit), PEL (permissible exposure limit), REL (recommended exposure limit). When you find a source that provides evidence that any of these levels have been violated, or that the current exposure levels are dangerous, you let me know. Furthermore, even if either of the above are true it hardly constitutes terrorism. It simply means that a mistake was made. We are not trying to use low level radiation to kill villagers. If we believed this form of U to be dangerous, we would not let our own troops handle these materials. Therefore, it can not be classified as a deliberate attempt to take civilian lives. Besides I doubt there is anything to be consered about. You probably have more radiation in your basement than these shells. The WHO is simply searching for anything they can blaim on the US.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 6:34 pm on July 29, 2002)

[Brian]

Why in the fuck was WWII there?

If it wasn't for the America, Britain would have fallen to the Axis and most of you people would be speaking German right now.

[Nateddi]

>>Why in the fuck was WWII there?

If it wasn't for the America, Britain would have fallen to the Axis and most of you people would be speaking German right now

Although i disagree on the exact importance of the u.s., i agree with you for the most part.

apparently james didn't realise he didn't cut out all the justified deployments. I brought this point up earlier on page 2.

[James]

Stormin; I'm not even going to pretend to know anything about weapons of war.

I wasn't saying that the dirty weapons were acts of terrorism. The point i was making was that due to the war, the background radiation had increased dramatically - if iraq had had all its medical equipment, and other stuff then the amount of civilian deaths would have been reduced dramatically - however due to UN trade embargo's (which have been dramatically controlled mainly by the US and UK) valuable, and nessecary equipment have been kept out of iraq. Why? To stop weapons from being made...an intresting point to now make is that on this list of "held back" items, such stuff as wheel barrows have been kept from entering iraq.

Like i said though, i don't really know much about the different types of tank shell used during the gulf - all i know is that they used DU, and now alot of people are suffering side affects in this country (of course no "official" link has been made, but its worrying my government enough to start tests, and giving out funds.

"You probably have more radiation in your basement than these shells." I don't have a basement :)

-------------

Why in the fuck was WWII there?

For individual casses in the war. Its much easier to simply state WW2, than name each and every individual case.

If it wasn't for the America, Britain would have fallen to the Axis and most of you people would be speaking German right now.

Really? Does your world map not have any of the eastern countries on, past poland?

apparently james didn't realise he didn't cut out all the justified deployments. I brought this point up earlier on page 2.

yeah, and i answered. Examples of things that WW2 may contain are dropping of the A-bombs, bombing of dresden, hamburg etc and the (death)camps set up after the war .

[guerrillaradio]

Mormon´s definition of terrorism is questionable to say the least. State terrrorism, discrimination and racism similar to that of the Taliban regime has been employed in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and many other countries which America has allied with to fight in Afghanistan. And that´s not forgetting the civillian slaughters in Vietnam (My Lai etc). As far as America is concerned, a terrorist is an anti-American.

[James]

Backing up an earlier point.

Dr Al-Ali, cancer specialist at the city of Basra hospital. Member of Britain's Royal College of Physicians.

"Before the gulf war, we had only three or four deaths in a month from cancer. Now its thirty-five patients dying every month, and thats just my department. That is twelve times the increase in the cancer mortality. Our studies indicate that 40 to 48 per cent of the population in this area will get cancer: in five years' time to begin with, then long afterwards. Thats almost half the population. Most of my family now have cancer, and we have no history of the disease. It has spread to the medical staff of this hospital; yesterday, the son of the medical director died. We don't know the precise source of the contamination, because we are not allowed to get the equipment to conduct a proper survey, or even test the excess level of radiation in our bodies. We strongly suspect depleted Uranium, which was by the American and Birtish in the Gulf War right across the the southern battlefields. Whatever the cause, it is like Chernobyl here, the genetic effects are new to us. Mushrooms gorw huge, and the fish in what was once a beautiful river are inedible. Even the grapes in my own garden have mutated and can't be eaten."

interview with john pilger, basra, october 18, 1999

Notice the problems? There has been an increase % of congenital malformation, an increase of malignancy, leukaemia, brain tumours etc etc. This was also noted in Hiroshima.

Its also intresting to note that iraq is not allowed to clean its battlefields - unlike kuwait. Which was allowed, and even given experts to help.

Also look at;

http://www.medact.org/uraniumbrief.html


http://www.nevadadesertexperience.org/pois...isonfireDU.html (http://www.nevadadesertexperience.org/poisonfireDU.html)

http://csf.colorado.edu/envtecsoc/2001/msg00624.html

I just looked at the pictures (follow links at the bottom of the above link). Go see what our weapons have done. And still do because we don't let them clean OUR mess up. This makes me so sick, and ashamed to be british.

[James]

http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/DU_small.JPG

http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/du_baby1_small.jpg

http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/du_baby2_small.jpg

There are more, but i really don't want to have to look at the others (much more upsetting).

And the point is WE don't let them STOP this from HAPPENING. Why? To stop Saddam from making weapons of mass destruction.

Sorry SN, as much as i appreciate your opinion. We have created a weapon of mass destruction. And its going to keep on killing.

These are UN actions. The UN is led by the United States Of America, and britain. We are allowing this to happen. This makes us terrorists.

[James]

From Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
by William Blum:

In his January 1998 State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton spoke of how we must "confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them." He castigated Iraq for "developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons" and called for strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention. Who among his listeners knew, who among the media reported, that the United States had been the supplier to Iraq of much of the source biological materials Saddam Hussein's scientists required to create a biological warfare program?

According to reports of a US Senate Committee in 1994:
From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the US Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were:

Bacillus anthracis, cause of anthrax.


Clostridium botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.


Histoplasma capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.


Brucella melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.


Clostridium perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.


Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.


Also, Escherichia coli (E.coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA. Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out that "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."

"It was later learned," the committee stated, "that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

The report noted further that US exports to Iraq included:

the precursors to chemical-warfare agents


plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities


chemical-warhead filling equipment.
These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds and Shiites since the early 1980s as part of its war with Iran.

Presumably, Iraq's use of these weapons against Iran is what Washington expected would happen.

[Stormin Norman]

I like the last article you posted.




(Edited by Stormin Norman at 5:16 am on July 30, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

"Medact is a charitable organisation of doctors, nurses and other health professionals who are concerned about major threats to health such as violent conflict, poverty and environmental degradation." - from source #1 referred to by James

The second site you referred me to is owned by Nevada Desert Experience, "a faith based organization dedicated to environmental protection - working for peace, justice, and non-violence. One of their pages has, "Why we should pray at the Nevada Test Site", as a header. Do you expect me to take this group seriously? They seem to be a bunch of yahoos, which organize protest marchs in the desert. Completely non-biased I am sure.

And your last source is not even worth mentioning.

Let me break it down for you. One of the units for radioactivity are called Curies (Ci). 1 Ci = a certain number of nuclear disentegrations per second, 3.7 x 10^10 to be precise.

More than just the amount of Curies must be considered when determining the intensity of radiation. One must consider energy and type of particles emitted. Alpha are the potitively charged particles, Beta is the negatively charged particles, and gamma are the high energy rays that are chargless, sort of like x-rays only a different wavelength and frequency. The first two can be deflected by charged plates the last one is extremely penetrating.

Another type of unit exists called the rad, which stands for radiation absorbed dose. It is determined by the absorbtion of 1 X 10^-5 J/g of irradiated surface material. The effects of radiation on humans depends on how the radioactive material was uptaken.

Alpha particles are the least absorbent of the three, followed by Beta, and then Gamma. The first two are really only dangerous when ingested. Over a years time Americans are subjected to 130-180 mrem/yr of radiation. This is the result of a variety of factors, sunrays, and radioactive decay in the ground mainly. 50-200 rems will do some damage in a short exposure period, but a dosage of 500 rem will kill you within a month's time.

The main reason for radioactive damage is the ability to ionize certain molecule. This will generate free radicals. Free radicals have a way of reacting extremely fast with most everything. They are molecules with an extra set of lonepair electrons (nonbonded electrons). DNA, and other organic molecules will bond with them and change the structure that they have to serve a specific purpose. Thus, the biochemistry of an organism is effected. When free radicals bind to DNA the new altered shape is passed to the next generation of replicated DNA. This is how mutations occur. Sometimes cancers will form as a result. Furthermore, if the dosage is directly uptaken by the subject, then organic molecules will be directly converted into free radicals. That is how burns and immediate damage occurs. Damage by radiation is classified as somatic and genetic. Somatic damage occurs in the subjects lifetime, where as genetic is passed to the new generation via the DNA mutations discussed earlier.

Okay, now that you have some general knowledge regarding radiation and its effect on living systems, you will have some idea of what you should be searching for. Given that and the recommended maximum exposure levels to Uranium that I gave you before, look at the test data and decide for yourself if a problem persists with depleted uranium being used in armor piercing ammunition. If you need help with the conversions I would be happy to assist. Otherwise, I will come to the conclusion that you are not interested in the truth, that you only care to hear left leaning propaganda that has no scientific basis for it.

Pictures do not prove a thing. How do I know that the person lives in an area affected by depleted uranium shelling? How do I know that it was not simply a genetic defect, independent of radioactive damage? Give me the hard data and I will crunch it myself, but don't use bleeding heart ploys to try to win your argument here. It will not work. I can believe Rumsfeld when he tells me that these are convention grade weapons that present no threat to civilian populations, because he allows the men of the military be exposed to the same weapons. Find the results from one of your studies. I think you will be hard pressed to do so, because none exists, that will prove that there is a problem. This is an argument developed by people who hold antiwar and anti-American sentiments and stinks of a bias.

-Consulted CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 3:01 am on July 30, 2002)

[James]

Medact may well be that, but i sent you to a specific page, i sent you there for a specific reason. Have you read the article? It talks about DU causing illness, but also offers other explanations, and other causes.

Second page - "Do you expect me to take this group seriously?"

okay you don't agree with their beliefs - neither do i. But i wasn't reading their site, i was simply pointing you to the section which had information on DU. On which there is alot about. I suggest you still go and read what it has to say (its all very samey though, agreeing with numerous other articles, human rights groups - to government. But i'm just mearly trying to get the simply point across to you that it does have an affect on humans "when swallowed").

And your last source is not even worth mentioning.


I'm sure there is another good reason for that as well...its just an article from england, with links on the bottom (some of which are links to pictures).

Take a look at

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/nuclear/du/

And especially

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/431817.stm


-----------------

Your science talk took me back to my last year of school (damn you!!!).

But i did try and understand it (however its way too hot at the moment to think properly - so i'll try and find some results that we can possibly talk about later if you want).

Otherwise, I will come to the conclusion that you are not interested in the truth, that you only care to hear left leaning propaganda that has no scientific basis for it.

Its so easy to simply say that information MUST be completely wrong, because its "left wing propaganda". I agree that alot of those sites do have opinion added, but thats easy to spot and denounce. As i'm sure you will agree.

Here are the basic facts that i have learned from my sources;

1) DU has been used in tank shells during the gulf, because its very "heavy" and is very succesful in armour peircing.

2) Well over 300 tons of DU were fired during the gulf war

3) Each tank shell contained over 4,500 grams of solid uranium.

4)Alot of Gulf War soldiers have suffered from illnesses relating to radioactive substances (ie cancers etc), and have suffered from "gulf war syndrome". Go on the BBC link for more -

5) Higher increase of cancer in Iraq, especially around the battlefields.

6) The battle fields havn't been "cleaned up"

7) DU is blaimed by many, including gulf war fighters, and iraqi civilians

8) Iraqi's have got cancer, with no history of it in their families.

9) Similar symptoms to that of victims of the A-Bombs

10) Concern has been shown by the british government, and they are starting tests

-----

I won't add my personal opinions to the list.

-----

If all the stuff i have said has been left winged propaganda, and i'm not at all intrested in the truth, can you please tell me SN, the reasons for illnesses in gulf war fighters - reasons for the massive increase of cancer (and other radioactive related illnesses) in iraqi civilians - Why experts who "cleaned up" the battle fields of Kuwait have been found to contain 5,000 times the recomended level of radiation in their bodies (also why gulf war fighters still have traces of DU in their urine -see bbc article) etc etc etc etc. Or is there no link what so ever, and its all a matter of chance?

[LeonardoDaVinci]

It's very simple. The whole concept of international law only applies to the poor and vulnerable. Rich and powerful nations don't need to conform to international standards, why? because nobody can force them to do so.

CI's arguement that the US is simply protecting it's own interests and the interests of the american people is flawed both legally and morally and damn right pathetic. Furthermore, it goes even further and demonstrates the selfish mentality of individualism and self-interest that is perpetuated and idolised in US culture. America has sanctioned itself to abuse nation and after nation, kill millions of people and starve many more simply to feed its insatiable lust for power and material possessions.

What I don't get is why people like CI consider their lives (and many americans and europeans) to be more precious and valuable than say a kid from cambodia or Somalia. Why they see nothing wrong with exploiting 3rd world countries to ensure they live a comfortable and care-free life? Such people are mere products of the selfish american dream that has been eternally glamorised, and are thus only discontented if their happy little existence is disturbed or directly affected by events somewhere far and strange where those disposable sub-humans live (i.e. outside the good ol' US of A).

Basically, their argument is as flawed as me saying that it is perfectly legitimate for a strong and ruthless criminal to rob them and then kill them once their purpose is done as long as he can get away with it.

[Brian]

"Really? Does your world map not have any of the eastern countries on, past poland?"

America didn't help Britain they would have fallen to the German and then German forces would be able to invade Soviet Union on full power and not be fighting a war in the west.Japan would have attack the Soviet Union too and with German and Japanese troops invading at once, Red Army would have gaven in.Italy would have taken Africa.German troops would have helped in the taking of China with Japanese troops.Without America's help it most likely would have been a Axis victory.

[Anonymous]

Brian: well what you perhaps didnt knew is taht hitler was planing to attack america, he had alredy an allience with mexico and was planing to attack america with the help of mexican soldiers! and who most contributed for WWII victory wasnt america, because if England didnt won the battle for britain the americans would most likely be conquered by germany, if the french resistence didnt gave so much info to the allies perhaps the american attacks would fail, soo america didnt won the war, neither it gave the most significant contribute to that, yes it helped a lot but who most valliently fought and who gave + victorys were the british and irt commonwealth!

[ComradeJunichi]

Hitler wanted Mexico to attack the US, he promised them they would get their land back. He did this so it would keep the US busy while Hitler took over Europe.

[guerrillaradio]

Fine Moron, ignore my post then...