I'm not attacking anyone, why are you so defensive?
I'm just saying there was probably a better way to frame the question.
I'm not attacking anyone, why are you so defensive?
How does any of this refute my original statement. You don't win a war by killing the enemy after the war is over.
every lying sack in here pretends to be part of some army. they hope that it will give them credebility when they spew their hate. just look at all of them and you will know.
That isn't fair. I had my hate before I ever joined the military. Joining the military just added it to my list of things I hate.
The Navy has been using DU rounds in the Phalanx systems for at least 30 years and I've never heard of anyone that contracted cancer from handling the rounds or working in close proximity to the rounds or Phalanx guns.
For those who aren't familiar with the Phalanx system, it's used the shoot down missiles before they reach the ship. They can also take down jets.
I know of someone who served on the USS Fife, they and other of our Seamen have a long running battle with the US Government about exactly this from the Gulf War era.
The US Government admitting they f-ed up is not exactly good proof of somethings non existence. I believe sooner or later these vets will be vindicated for their sacrifice. I just hope we learn from our mistakes.
DU was in use well before the Gulf War. There were service personnel exposed to chemicals in Iraq but not those onboard ships in the Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean.
Once again, DU is not a chemical. Its nuclear waste. -Just sayin.
^_^ nice one
The Navy has been using DU rounds in the Phalanx systems for at least 30 years and I've never heard of anyone that contracted cancer from handling the rounds or working in close proximity to the rounds or Phalanx guns.
For those who aren't familiar with the Phalanx system, it's used the shoot down missiles before they reach the ship. They can also take down jets.
You know, there are ways to destroy armored vehicles without poisoning the environment
You know, there are ways to destroy armored vehicles without poisoning the environment and victimizing the innocent people who have to live there long after hostilities come to an end.
You know, there are ways to destroy armored vehicles without poisoning the environment and victimizing the innocent people who have to live there long after hostilities come to an end.
Since that is the case, why does the U.S. federal government Mafia still insist on using poisonous munitions?
Thanks for sharing your experience. From what I've been able to gather those systems use jacketed rounds to protect the barrels, similar to those of the A-10's weapon. It seems to me the more serious danger comes from proximity to the targets and the airborn particles/dust getting into the lungs and bloodstream that way than from proximity to the ammo.
Don't think so? Think again. The money in war nowadays is in the cleanup and rebuilding. Why do you think old Cheney there was pushing for the war?
Capitalism is not about destroying markets, it is about conquering (and creating) new markets. Be it a lucrative cancer treating industry, all the better for drug companies etc.
Also the nuke industry gets to sell more radiation to hospitals to treat the cancers from their radiation.
Capitalism rocks. Capitalism + warfare = how the top 1% got to where they are for generations.
You are quite naive about how the real world works I must say. Economic warfare is literally the warfare of the 21st century. Always has been.
Romans would salt a conquered lands farmland after the legions moved through.
This is elementary warfare 101. Pick up Sun Tzu's "art of warfare" sometime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium_ammunitionThe actual level of acute and Chronic toxicity of DU is also a point of medical controversy. Several studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.[5] A 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10] However, the World Health Organization, the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations which is responsible for setting health research norms and standards, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends, states that no risk of reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects have been reported in humans due to DU exposure.