Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Uranium article

I wonder if now the DOD will finally do something to help the vets with Gulf War Syndrome.

The remaining question is this, now that this is being proven, if we continue to use depleted uranium weapons will we be guilty of a war crime?

Just a few thoughts that popped in my head.

They haven't done much to help the veterans of Vietnam. Why should ignoring another group of vets be any different?

The US has engaged a new philosophy of warfare in which massive expenditures purchase massive materiel, infrastructure, and human losses TO ITSELF while minimizing enemy losses lest social advocates whine.

How Liberal can you stand it?

Indeed cluster bombs, shock and awe bombing runs in Iraq are great at minimizing enemy losses. As far as the large amount of money the government has spent; ask the troops who have had to have their parents send them body armor because the National Guard and reservists were not issued any, or how about the troops that got had to add armor to the vehilces so they could withstand roadside bombs and RPGs? Some of them even got courtmartialed for it.

This administration in particular has an absolutely horrendous record on taking care of the troops so do not think that the money is being spent for anything useful. The mercenaries (sorry civilian contractors) are better outfitted then the Marines. I know, I have a friend that left the Marine Corps to work for Blackwater.

Before you go on about us reconstructing Iraq, go to the Baghdad Burning blog by Riverbend who lives in Iraq for some interesting insight.

If you noticed my comment was directed at the US government TAKING CARE OF OUR TROOPS as well as leaving random bits of decaying uranium about the place.

Al, you amaze me really. As intelllgent as you seem at times you really are nothing but a soulless, angry, bitter man with a large vocabulary.

Uncle Al wrote:
"while minimizing enemy losses lest social advocates whine."

Anytime you would like a demonstration of what is accomplished by Napalm and Cluster Bombs and Fuel-Air Mixtures I'd be happy to explain it to you in graphic detail.

Minimize losses? Horse.... The only thing being minimized is the bad public relations that comes from letting people see the horror being conducted in their name.

Are Iraqi cities still standing? Have we lost 2000+ soldiers after the war was declared won? I stand uncorrected. How many hundreds of $billions have we poured into "rebuilding" their infrastructure? We should have leveled every dwelling, burned them to ashes, then strewn the ground with salt. (Sodium sulfate, actually. It is a major manufacturing waste. Gotta get rid of it somehow.)

Patton of all WWII commanders had the highest ratio of enemy killed and injured to his own losses. He exercised a simple warrior philosophy: destroy the enemy. Go through them like **** through a goose. Montgomery, in contrast, was the absolute worst field commander since British troops marched toward Hun machine gun emplacements in WWI, repeatedly, thanks to equally talentless Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig. (The Battle of the Somme, 1916: 57,470 British casualties the first day; 419,654 Imperial losses overall to get within 3 miles of their first-day objective - after 4.5 months.)

Montgomery farted through silk after WWII.

This isn't a war. It is El Ultimo Presidente Boosh tossing hundreds of billions of dollars at his purchased friends whose skids are greased with the blood of our soldiers. It is obscene and it has gutted the US. Bush the Lesser disdains dead and mutilated soldiers. They are not of his class.

Fiat money must be made real. President Carter's hyperflation/stagflation was nothing compared to what is fast approaching. Look at the prices of silver and gold. The dollar is hollow and set to implode. All the big multi-nationals long ago moved their funds into Euros. Prepare yourself for some "bad luck."

What is the alternative? Bush needs another hot war for the November 2006 elections and certainly for the 2008 elections. Let's thermonuke Iran using Israel for the first strike. Either outcome thereafter cements a Republican Congress for two more years. Wag the dog.

Uncle Al asks:
"Are Iraqi cities still standing?"

Yes. Is Bush still President? Yes. The two go together. If you think the agenda relates to fighting just wars and winning them you've go the wrong century.

When people stop letting their opinions be affected by meaningless phrases like "conservative", "liberal", "capitalist", socialist" and start paying attention to deeds like unbalanced budgets and kleptocracy things may change. But you, Al, are still running around dishing out sound-bytes like "ecowhiner" and "liberal" so you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

First off Al, Iraq was never then enemy until Bush made Saddam a problem.

Let me rephrase that, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and therefore we should never had started this stupid war. We should have focused all the money and effort into closing down Al-qaeda. What we have accomplished is nothing less then giving ample fuel for future terrorists.

BLOOD FEUDS CAUSE TERRORISM AL!! Anyone who has lost a family member in Iraq can very easliy be turned into a terrorist. We have accomplished nothing and if you really think leveling Iraq would have made it any better your are an idiot.

Perhaps Al owns stock in an asphalt company and believes we should pave it over. There is, after all, a lack of parking spaces and Al probably gets irritable when he can't buy Hallmark cards for people to mark special occassions.

you mean other than suppling arms, training, and money to the terrioriest? the current war is really only part three of the war that was started over iraq invadeing other oil rich countries during bush senors rule. suddam made noise about ruling the entire region.

let me give you a small history lesson. in the mid 1930's, hitler did the same thing. said the same thing about it being only neccissary because the other countries were taking things that were suppose to be germanies. england and the us had a chance to stop hitler then and there, but they failed. the result is that we ended up in a war that lasted most of a decade and involved the majority of the world.

this time they tried a different tactic. they gave saddam warnings and tried to make him back down. did not work. so they tried a limited war. going only as far as needed to get him out of kuwait. then they listen to librials that claimed that we were taking away their choise.

the result is that instead of invadeing more ppl he gave support to terrorist. plus he made prepreation to build nuclear devices. yes he never completed them, but it was only a matter of time. the next 9/11 would have an incoming aircraft carrying a nuclear device with a suicidal bomber causing an air blast less than a quarter of a mile above new york.

your forgetting that 9/11 was not the first attack on the world trade center. at least one of the preceding attacks were linked to iraq and its money.

yes things are terrible there. and yes are soldiers are not being properly taken care of. what do you expect from a nation that gives the contract to the lowest bidder regardless of what would be best.