NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: American soldiers are dying due to the WMD sarin that Saddam didn't have? Hmmm.


Cancer Linked to Nerve Agent (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_cancer_072605,00.html?ESRC=army.nl)


USA Today | July 26, 2005

For the first time, a study has found an increase in brain-cancer deaths among Gulf War veterans who might have been exposed to the nerve agent Sarin by the destruction of Iraqi weapons in 1991.

About 100,000 of the 350,000 Army soldiers in the Persian Gulf could have been exposed to Sarin after soldiers blew up two large ammunition caches in Khamisiyah, Iraq, in March 1991, according to a study commissioned by the military and performed by the Institute of Medicine. The institute advises the government on health policy.

At the time, the military didn't know that the destroyed Iraqi rockets contained Sarin, says Michael Kilpatrick, deputy director for the Deployment Health Support Directorate in the Department of Defense. Soldiers showed no signs of exposure to chemical warfare.

Later, however, United Nations inspectors found that some of the weapons contained Sarin, which can cause convulsions and death. The military has since contacted about 300,000 veterans who were in or near areas that might have been affected. The potential "hazard area," where shifting winds could have carried traces of chemicals, extended at times as far as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

According to the study, soldiers inside the hazard area were about twice as likely as those outside it to die from brain cancer. Because the actual number of brain-cancer cases was small, the overall mortality rate was the same for veterans in the hazard area and outside the area, according to the study, published in the American Journal of Public Health.

Among unexposed soldiers, researchers found a brain-cancer death rate of 12 per 100,000 from 1991 to 2000, says William Page, director of the study. During the same period, researchers found 25 brain-cancer deaths per 100,000 veterans who were exposed.

"It's a doubling of risk, but it's still a pretty small risk," says Page, a senior program officer at the Institute of Medicine.

The study did not address "Gulf War syndrome," as some have called the collection of ailments experienced by returning veterans. It examined whether soldiers possibly exposed to the destruction of Iraqi weapons were more likely to die for any reason. The study also singled out specific diseases: breathing problems, infections, circulatory problems, digestive ailments, accidents and suicides, as well as four types of cancer.

The study's authors note that Sarin has never been shown to cause cancer. Page suggests that researchers follow veterans to see whether the risk of brain cancer, which is believed to develop over 10 to 20 years, changes over time. Page also notes that the study doesn't prove that being in the hazard area caused brain cancer.

Melissa Bondy, a professor of epidemiology at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, questions why only one or two days of exposure would increase brain-cancer mortality. Other experts note that the study could shed light on the causes of brain tumors, about which doctors know little.

"It's a very solid study," says Faith Davis, a professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago. "It needs to be taken seriously."

that is horrible. :(

How is that different from the Gulf War I veterans returning with radiation effects from DU ammunition? Also, if you're trying to justify the Iraq invasion by this, the article says nothing about Saddam having them after Gulf War I. Of course we knew he had them before and even during the war, but as of yet, we never found any traces of WMDs since the first war. I'm sorry, but the search has officially ended if you weren't reading the papers six months ago.

How is that different from the Gulf War I veterans returning with radiation effects from DU ammunition? Also, if you're trying to justify the Iraq invasion by this, the article says nothing about Saddam having them after Gulf War I. Of course we knew he had them before and even during the war, but as of yet, we never found any traces of WMDs since the first war. I'm sorry, but the search has officially ended if you weren't reading the papers six months ago.
I expected you to try and minimize this. Fortunately, you can safely be ignored.

How is that different from the Gulf War I veterans returning with radiation effects from DU ammunition? Also, if you're trying to justify the Iraq invasion by this, the article says nothing about Saddam having them after Gulf War I. Of course we knew he had them before and even during the war, but as of yet, we never found any traces of WMDs since the first war. I'm sorry, but the search has officially ended if you weren't reading the papers six months ago.
All behold the insensate ramblings of achtung 45.

I expected you to try and minimize this. Fortunately, you can safely be ignored.
Why is that? Because I try to put things into perspective? Thank you for proving that you ignore people who don't think like you.

Are these the same soldiers that others are linking to the use of depleted uranium? Who did the study? Did they consider depleted uranium?

I think they should look into all possible causes. They are merely guessing it was sarin even though they thought that it didn't cause cancer. yet we know radiation causes cancer and the soldiers had extended exposure to that where as teh article states they have very limited exposure to sarin.

All behold the insensate ramblings of achtung 45. Insensate? Aren't I supposed to be the bleeding-heart liberal? Or are you just pulling things out of your ass because I'm putting things into prespective. Frankly I don't see the point of Eutrusca starting this thread other than to increase his post count. Whoopdeedoo, returning veterans are getting brain cancer, there're still people in Japan suffering from radiation from the A-bombs. Iraqi babies are being born deformed and mutilated thanks to DU ammunition. Who's crying out on their behalf? War is a horrible thing and we should do everything in our power to stop it.

Behold the arrogance of Ravenshrike! :D

Are these the same soldiers that others are linking to the use of depleted uranium? Who did the study? Did they consider depleted uranium?

I think they should look into all possible causes. They are merely guessing it was sarin even though they thought that it didn't cause cancer. yet we know radiation causes cancer and the soldiers had extended exposure to that where as teh article states they have very limited exposure to sarin.
don't bother bringing that up here--rationalization doesn't work in this thread.

COMMENTARY: American soldiers are dying due to the WMD sarin that Saddam didn't have? Hmmm.


Cancer Linked to Nerve Agent (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_cancer_072605,00.html?ESRC=army.nl)


USA Today | July 26, 2005

For the first time, a study has found an increase in brain-cancer deaths among Gulf War veterans who might have been exposed to the nerve agent Sarin by the destruction of Iraqi weapons in 1991.

About 100,000 of the 350,000 Army soldiers in the Persian Gulf could have been exposed to Sarin after soldiers blew up two large ammunition caches in Khamisiyah, Iraq, in March 1991, according to a study commissioned by the military and performed by the Institute of Medicine. The institute advises the government on health policy.

At the time, the military didn't know that the destroyed Iraqi rockets contained Sarin, says Michael Kilpatrick, deputy director for the Deployment Health Support Directorate in the Department of Defense. Soldiers showed no signs of exposure to chemical warfare.

Later, however, United Nations inspectors found that some of the weapons contained Sarin, which can cause convulsions and death. The military has since contacted about 300,000 veterans who were in or near areas that might have been affected. The potential "hazard area," where shifting winds could have carried traces of chemicals, extended at times as far as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

According to the study, soldiers inside the hazard area were about twice as likely as those outside it to die from brain cancer. Because the actual number of brain-cancer cases was small, the overall mortality rate was the same for veterans in the hazard area and outside the area, according to the study, published in the American Journal of Public Health.

Among unexposed soldiers, researchers found a brain-cancer death rate of 12 per 100,000 from 1991 to 2000, says William Page, director of the study. During the same period, researchers found 25 brain-cancer deaths per 100,000 veterans who were exposed.

"It's a doubling of risk, but it's still a pretty small risk," says Page, a senior program officer at the Institute of Medicine.

The study did not address "Gulf War syndrome," as some have called the collection of ailments experienced by returning veterans. It examined whether soldiers possibly exposed to the destruction of Iraqi weapons were more likely to die for any reason. The study also singled out specific diseases: breathing problems, infections, circulatory problems, digestive ailments, accidents and suicides, as well as four types of cancer.

The study's authors note that Sarin has never been shown to cause cancer. Page suggests that researchers follow veterans to see whether the risk of brain cancer, which is believed to develop over 10 to 20 years, changes over time. Page also notes that the study doesn't prove that being in the hazard area caused brain cancer.

Melissa Bondy, a professor of epidemiology at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, questions why only one or two days of exposure would increase brain-cancer mortality. Other experts note that the study could shed light on the causes of brain tumors, about which doctors know little.

"It's a very solid study," says Faith Davis, a professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago. "It needs to be taken seriously."

Any orher propaganda lies and jokes? Extremist Republican Clowns like you should better think about the 30.000 civilians killed by you before the capitulation of Saddams Army. Or the 10.000's (in total it is 64.000 according the body count till now) killed by US troops (yep most civilians are killed not by terrorists but by Us troops). Of course they don't tell you that at FOX news. Try "Outfoxed " an learn a bit about decent and real balanced news instead of your blind and uncritical propaganda and lies. Jezus you are so biase, is your dead Rove? You're a young and blind extremist thug, that is for sure.

don't bother bringing that up here--rationalization doesn't work in this thread.


I wonder why people are so adamantly opposed to the idea that Du might be the cause of this. There are numerous studies dedicated to it and the Us govt. wants to silence anything connecting Du to anything.

It's really worrying that people would get so red in teh face when you suggest that we think about DU. What is the problem people? This is about the sick soldiers.

We all know Saddam had sarin gas back in the day. Who said he didn't? If it DU or sarin lets not be stupid and help these poor sick vets! Don't pretend you know all tehre is to know about sarin gas because a study suggests it might be linked.

Blind patriotism can work against our own service men here folks.

Sorry I'm not very coherent but when people close their eyes to things just because it might implicate the US govt. then it really gets my goat.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the fact that the use of Sarin gas in and directly after the first gulf war more or less an established fact?

Some 13 years later, the same conditions may no longer apply. That was the point of the inspections ne?

The use of this long term tragedy in waiting to gain political points even when the two events are not neccessarily the same is rather low Eut. I expected better of you.

COMMENTARY: American soldiers are dying due to the WMD sarin that Saddam didn't have? Hmmm.


Cancer Linked to Nerve Agent (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_cancer_072605,00.html?ESRC=army.nl)


USA Today | July 26, 2005

For the first time, a study has found an increase in brain-cancer deaths among Gulf War veterans who might have been exposed to the nerve agent Sarin by the destruction of Iraqi weapons in 1991.

About 100,000 of the 350,000 Army soldiers in the Persian Gulf could have been exposed to Sarin after soldiers blew up two large ammunition caches in Khamisiyah, Iraq, in March 1991, according to a study commissioned by the military and performed by the Institute of Medicine. The institute advises the government on health policy.

At the time, the military didn't know that the destroyed Iraqi rockets contained Sarin, says Michael Kilpatrick, deputy director for the Deployment Health Support Directorate in the Department of Defense. Soldiers showed no signs of exposure to chemical warfare.

Later, however, United Nations inspectors found that some of the weapons contained Sarin, which can cause convulsions and death. The military has since contacted about 300,000 veterans who were in or near areas that might have been affected. The potential "hazard area," where shifting winds could have carried traces of chemicals, extended at times as far as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

According to the study, soldiers inside the hazard area were about twice as likely as those outside it to die from brain cancer. Because the actual number of brain-cancer cases was small, the overall mortality rate was the same for veterans in the hazard area and outside the area, according to the study, published in the American Journal of Public Health.

Among unexposed soldiers, researchers found a brain-cancer death rate of 12 per 100,000 from 1991 to 2000, says William Page, director of the study. During the same period, researchers found 25 brain-cancer deaths per 100,000 veterans who were exposed.

"It's a doubling of risk, but it's still a pretty small risk," says Page, a senior program officer at the Institute of Medicine.

The study did not address "Gulf War syndrome," as some have called the collection of ailments experienced by returning veterans. It examined whether soldiers possibly exposed to the destruction of Iraqi weapons were more likely to die for any reason. The study also singled out specific diseases: breathing problems, infections, circulatory problems, digestive ailments, accidents and suicides, as well as four types of cancer.

The study's authors note that Sarin has never been shown to cause cancer. Page suggests that researchers follow veterans to see whether the risk of brain cancer, which is believed to develop over 10 to 20 years, changes over time. Page also notes that the study doesn't prove that being in the hazard area caused brain cancer.

Melissa Bondy, a professor of epidemiology at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, questions why only one or two days of exposure would increase brain-cancer mortality. Other experts note that the study could shed light on the causes of brain tumors, about which doctors know little.

"It's a very solid study," says Faith Davis, a professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago. "It needs to be taken seriously."


Yeah, Saddam's a bastard. But it still dosen't justify the invasion.

Behold the arrogance of Ravenshrike! :D
Behold the bloody flame war that is NS General.

There's a lot of "might" in that article. It's still a lot of speculation.

Before you go "NO! IT"S NOT DU YOU STUPID HIPPIE, YOU JUST HATE BUSH!" here is the link to comments to this article: http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTopic?a=dl&f=672198221&s=78919038&x_id=74240&x_subject=Cancer%20Linked%20to%20Nerve%20Agent&x_dpp=Y&x_link=http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_cancer_072605,00.html



RE: Well I'm one of those sick Veterans And all I can do is pray that it is not what is wrong with me And pray for the ones who have passed away from that . There are so many of us who are sick . It is time for the VA to stop calling most of are problems PTSD related. And start paying and helping the ones who have been pushed to the back corner. I have been rated since 2001. But there are way to many of us I.E. My driver is one of those I am talking about. He has been sick longer then me and is still fighting the system for help. They are happy to medicate And then tell you I'ts all in your head. We were less then ten miles from where we blew up those weapons. Our country sold Iraq those chemical weapons. How do I no this I saw them, with my own eyes. During the 1980's we were more then happy to supply his army with are weapons and equiptment. I love my country and would do it all over again. But lets own up to are mistakes and take care of are sick soldiers. I was in for almost ten years before all of a sudden I became sick and fatigued and left active duty. To fight the system for almost eight years. before recieving benifits. Only after I lost everything, did I finally recieve help. I have a family of five. My driver lives with his parents at the age of thirty five. COWBOY UP AMERICA.
Sgt. Mike Roley,
sickhttp://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_cancer_072605,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sounds like the fiasco that we went through with Dow Chemicals and Agent Orange for the Vietnam Era Veterans. If any of you want to get any help soon, I would advise getting a class action suit started on the manufacturer that produce the stuff (a U.S. manufacturer) There must be some trade secret information on the known hazardous properties contaned in this Sarin. While it is a nerve gas, it could have some secondary hazards that is not as immediate as the primary. To make a nasty concoction like this, it usually is a "witches brew" of a lot of unhealthy things. I would advise getting very educated on this stuff right now. The fights in the courts is only going to come from your own collective groups of collected resources and knoweledge. The federal government is not going to argue your case for you because they are just as guilty as the manufacturer. Not only for allowing the sale, but for exposing you to it by sending us there and not alerting us to these weapons being on the ground. All of us has had NBC training, we know what this stuff can do downwind in concentrations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, If it Depleted Uranium that is causing most of the problems, I know I will be screwed here in a few years. I remember classes given on DU that said you should remain 50 - 100 meters from any burning vehicle hit by a DU round. Considering most targets, I.E. Tanks, personel carriers, were hit by Abrams or Bradley's that fire DU rounds in Iraq in 2003, it was pretty hard to stay 50 meters away when the damn thing is burning in the middle of the MSR (main supply route) and we had to drive past or sometimes wait in convoys sitting directly beside the thing while it was burning. I just hope we don't get the same problems Gulf War vets are dealing with 10 years from now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good info. There has to be some reason why many of us are so sick. I started having problems as soon as I got back.. No longer could I make love with my wife; I got up multiple times to urinate. Nothing the doctors offered solved the problems. About three years (1995) after I retired I became epileptic, a condition I haven't controlled. I do not have major seizures but know when I have one! I cannot walk more than a few feet without my walker or a helping hand. When the VA gave the walker to me I was in seventh heaven. The VA had done a lot for me but cannot find out what is wrong and totally stop the seizures. I applaud their efforts and just wish they would hit paydirt!! God bless and good luck to the rest of you. If you can't work don't forget the Social Secret Administration. They're there to help.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well the data and the findings are incomplete. I was in a fifteen person unit with G5 right at Fort Hood, no deployment, just providing support in the rear. Yet five of us were diagnosed with various forms of cancer. Personally, I don't believe it has anything to do with the Sarin. I think the problem was in the boosters we were all given in preparation for deployment should it have become necessary. That is the only factor we all have in common.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I served in 1990-91 Marine Corps (Gulf War). I am experiancing some of the same problems.The VA refuses to relate it to the Gulf War.The government does not want to admit, and often cares less.Veterans get left behind.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You don't have to go all the way to Iraq to get poisoned. All that depleted uranium we've scattered all over Iraq is blowing right back to us.

All the World's a Stage
... for Dust
Tune in to a NASA website and watch giant dust clouds as they ride global rivers of air, cross-pollinating continents with topsoil and microbes. (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast26jun_1.htm)



It could be DU, it could be sarin, it could be stress - I dont know but I don't think we should discount anything.

Whoopdeedoo, returning veterans are getting brain cancer, there're still people in Japan suffering from radiation from the A-bombs. Iraqi babies are being born deformed and mutilated thanks to DU ammunition. Who's crying out on their behalf?

Obviously you are! And not to mention people have been 'crying out' over the a-bombs for 60 years...

Brain cancer = bad.
People dying/suffering = bad.
Eutrusca handily throwing in this sentance - "American soldiers are dying due to the WMD sarin that Saddam didn't have? Hmmm" = weak.

First off, you cite evidence from Gulf War I. That's I. Not the interwar period, or II. Which means that it's quite possible, if not probable given the utter failure of the search for WMD's post GWII, that President Hussein either destroyed or abandoned the weapons he had. Like the world told him too. Like he said he did.

And that's assuming that your evidence is solid. Which it isn't, as the line in the article says - "The study's authors note that Sarin has never been shown to cause cancer. Page suggests that researchers follow veterans to see whether the risk of brain cancer, which is believed to develop over 10 to 20 years, changes over time. Page also notes that the study doesn't prove that being in the hazard area caused brain cancer."

So cancer is bad. But Sarin, what was supposedly destroyed there, DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER. In fact, the authors themselves note that they didn't prove the hazard was responsible at all. So very low rates doubled. Now on the surface that seems decisive, but as the rates of brain cancer are so low, a doubling really only accounts for a handful more cases, 13 more to be exact, which is very, very weak evidence for anything.

I won't say that it is isn't interesting, in the fields of medicine and statistics. But I will say that it wasn't Sarin, and it doesn't prove WMDs in the slightest. In fact it could just be a statistical anomaly, or caused by God only knows what reason, from depelated uranium rounds to natural anomalies in the area.

But the pro war's smoking gun it isn't. That would have been real weapons. Which have never been found, and the search for them was officialy cancelled a while back I believe.

Umm... didn't everyone know that at one point, Saddam did have WMD, i.e. in 1991, but the current war really has nothing to do with these old WMD, but current, usable ones that haven't been found?

Eutrusca, did you have a point with this thread?

Any orher propaganda lies and jokes? Extremist Republican Clowns like you should better think about the 30.000 civilians killed by you before the capitulation of Saddams Army. Or the 10.000's (in total it is 64.000 according the body count till now) killed by US troops (yep most civilians are killed not by terrorists but by Us troops). Of course they don't tell you that at FOX news. Try "Outfoxed " an learn a bit about decent and real balanced news instead of your blind and uncritical propaganda and lies. Jezus you are so biase, is your dead Rove? You're a young and blind extremist thug, that is for sure.

Excuse me while I laugh till my sides crack and my ass falls off...

http://www.cohguru.com/forum/images/smilies/lmao.gif

*Ahem* Right... I feel better now.

Eutrusca is old enough to be your father, grandfather maybe even. Besides that, "Outfoxed" is bullshit^16 and his source wasn't Fox.

Oh and one more thing, I'm going to be Frank with you.

*Channeling Frank*

Your a fucking moron.

Frank can be very blunt at times.

Man reading more of the comments by soldiers dierctly affected by this makes me so angry. FUCK the way our Govt. treats the veterans!!!!!
Yeah Eut, what is your point in starting this thread? you pretend to give a damn about the vets it seems but your main point seems to be that Saddam had sarin at one point. Duh! everyone knows that and who supplied it to him? the freakin United States.

Why aren't you up in arms about that? why arent you pissed about the shoddy treatment the vets are getting? I would think you most of all would feel outrage over those particular things. instead you are here seemingly tryign to say anti-war protesters all thought Saddam was a cute little fluffy bunny who wouldnt harm a soul and never possesed as much as a pocket knife as if that was ever the case.

I wonder why people are so adamantly opposed to the idea that Du might be the cause of this. There are numerous studies dedicated to it and the Us govt. wants to silence anything connecting Du to anything.
The article was not referring to GWS, it was referring to something separate. The people coming up with the cancer were in the areas affected by the residuals from the explosions. GWS isn't nearly as pattern-specific and covers a much larger area.

Umm... didn't everyone know that at one point, Saddam did have WMD, i.e. in 1991, but the current war really has nothing to do with these old WMD, but current, usable ones that haven't been found?

Eutrusca, did you have a point with this thread?
As I pointed out earlier, the reason he created this was to increase his post count.

The article was not referring to GWS, it was referring to something separate. The people coming up with the cancer were in the areas affected by the residuals from the explosions. GWS isn't nearly as pattern-specific and covers a much larger area.


The study did not address "Gulf War syndrome," as some have called the collection of ailments experienced by returning veterans. It examined whether soldiers possibly exposed to the destruction of Iraqi weapons were more likely to die for any reason. The study also singled out specific diseases: breathing problems, infections, circulatory problems, digestive ailments, accidents and suicides, as well as four types of cancer.

The study's authors note that Sarin has never been shown to cause cancer. Page suggests that researchers follow veterans to see whether the risk of brain cancer, which is believed to develop over 10 to 20 years, changes over time. Page also notes that the study doesn't prove that being in the hazard area caused brain cancer.


What does this study show exactly? It's a bunch of maybe's. there are no conclusions. DU should not be discounted.

This thread makes me want to just sit down and cry at where we've gone wrong. I went through the pro-war stage too, and rationalized for myself many things- that it was necessary, that is was human nature, etc. but nothing can prepare you for the testimony of those that have fought in wars, any wars. Be they ex-SS or US soldiers in the Gulf War- a soldier is a soldier, and a human being. A soldier doesn't fight for you freedom, or for your country, they fight and do what they are told. And soldiers die. Too many. Way too many. War is not books and movies and the Geneva convention. It is widows and orphans and destroyed homes, and just things to terrible to impose on anyone. We didnt go to Iraq to make those things, but that is exactly what is happening.

War is not history books either. We devasted all of Japan's major cities, oftentimes levelling more than 60% thereof with blanket bomb raids. Everything was in ruins. The atomic bombs were cherries on top of the cake.

I hate to think about it- but we haven't done anything great for the Iraqi people. We came in to remove a few people from positions of power, and now that they're gone it'll be decades upon decades until the peopel find peace and stability again. My grandparents lived in Stalin's regime- and they lived content. They didn't have many freedoms- but they had stability. After the Union fell apart they lost their jobs, their savings in the bank, and almost everything. I know its not the same, and it wasnt even war, but the rampant crime and the cleptocracy that became Russia was horrible enough for them.

Freedom is what we make it to be. I would be content with raising a family and living with them. People in history have lived with worse. I don't care about being able to make a post on anything I want. I would rather naively hope we can all simply live in peace- shed teh darker and violent characteristics of our natures. Everyone that is for war is only so until they live it. You support your troops, as do I, but do you support the lives they take and ruin, even if they are a result if a struggle for a (supposed) greater good?

I know it's not a very coherent post- but I just can't express my feelings fully. There is no glory or honor in war- there is only senseless death and destruction. And almost everyone in the world will agree that we can do it without those.

This thread makes me want to just sit down and cry at where we've gone wrong. I went through the pro-war stage too, and rationalized for myself many things- that it was necessary, that is was human nature, etc. but nothing can prepare you for the testimony of those that have fought in wars, any wars. Be they ex-SS or US soldiers in the Gulf War- a soldier is a soldier, and a human being. A soldier doesn't fight for you freedom, or for your country, they fight and do what they are told. And soldiers die. Too many. Way too many. War is not books and movies and the Geneva convention. It is widows and orphans and destroyed homes, and just things to terrible to impose on anyone. We didnt go to Iraq to make those things, but that is exactly what is happening.

War is not history books either. We devasted all of Japan's major cities, oftentimes levelling more than 60% thereof with blanket bomb raids. Everything was in ruins. The atomic bombs were cherries on top of the cake.

I hate to think about it- but we haven't done anything great for the Iraqi people. We came in to remove a few people from positions of power, and now that they're gone it'll be decades upon decades until the peopel find peace and stability again. My grandparents lived in Stalin's regime- and they lived content. They didn't have many freedoms- but they had stability. After the Union fell apart they lost their jobs, their savings in the bank, and almost everything. I know its not the same, and it wasnt even war, but the rampant crime and the cleptocracy that became Russia was horrible enough for them.

Freedom is what we make it to be. I would be content with raising a family and living with them. People in history have lived with worse. I don't care about being able to make a post on anything I want. I would rather naively hope we can all simply live in peace- shed teh darker and violent characteristics of our natures. Everyone that is for war is only so until they live it. You support your troops, as do I, but do you support the lives they take and ruin, even if they are a result if a struggle for a (supposed) greater good?

I know it's not a very coherent post- but I just can't express my feelings fully. There is no glory or honor in war- there is only senseless death and destruction. And almost everyone in the world will agree that we can do it without those.


*hug*

*hug*
*group hug*

What does this study show exactly? It's a bunch of maybe's. there are no conclusions. DU should not be discounted.
Never said it should. By the same token however, if brain cancer cases never develop outside of the indicated areas of fallout from the explosions at the above normal rate then it would seem unlikely that DU is the cause. That isn't automatically true, of course, but it is demonstrably more probable that that is the case.

Why isn't whispering legs here defending the use of Depleted Uranium? he loves it so much he eats it for beakfast.

Why isn't whispering legs here defending the use of Depleted Uranium? he loves it so much he eats it for beakfast.
lol, haven't seen WL around lately! *evily grins* :sniper: :sniper: <--DU bullet :D

Never said it should. By the same token however, if brain cancer cases never develop outside of the indicated areas of fallout from the explosions at the above normal rate then it would seem unlikely that DU is the cause. That isn't automatically true, of course, but it is demonstrably more probable that that is the case.

but the indicated area of fallout supposedly reaches to saudi arabia and there were hundreds of places where weapons were destroyed surrounding troops in many areas

anyway, yes we shoudlnt rule out sarin either as I have said - it could be one of many factors. theres also the burning oil wells - stress - who knows what other chemical agents and other things that I'm too pissed to think about

Why isn't whispering legs here defending the use of Depleted Uranium? he loves it so much he eats it for beakfast.
Not everybody is on NS all the time.

lol, haven't seen WL around lately! *evily grins* :sniper: :sniper: <--DU bullet :D


he probably got into a gun fight at the mall or something :p

well I hope he's alright

ad why isnt trusc in here defending himself. Looking at teh title of this thread, he obviously believes that this study is conclusive proof that Saddam is still hiding WMD's in his underwears.

Not everybody is on NS all the time.

really? lol - thanks for enlightening me. I was joking really, I just rememberd that WL thinks D.U. can safely be used as snuff and realized I hadn't seen him around lately.


if he were here I would post this:

Bush Sr.'s Gulf War I was also a nuclear war. 320 tons of depleted uranium were used against Iraq in 1991. A 1998 report by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances confirms that inhaling DU causes symptoms identical to those claimed by many sick vets with Gulf War Syndrome. The Gulf War Veterans Association reports that at least 300,000 Gulf War I vets have now developed incapacitating illnesses. To date, 209,000 vets have filed claims for disability benefits based on service-connected injuries and illnesses from combat in that war.

Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a professor of nuclear medicine at Georgetown University, is a former army medical expert. He told nuclear scientists in Paris last year that tens of thousands of sick British and American soldiers are now dying from radiation they encountered during Gulf War I. He found that 62 percent of sick vets tested have uranium isotopes in their organs, bones, brains and urine. Laboratories in Switzerland and Finland corroborated his findings. In other studies, some sick vets were found to be expressing uranium even in their semen. Their sexual partners often complained of a burning sensation during intercourse, followed by their own debilitating illnesses.



but he isnt so I wont

ad why isnt trusc in here defending himself. Looking at teh title of this thread, he obviously believes that this study is conclusive proof that Saddam is still hiding WMD's in his underwears.

So THATS what the bulge in Saddam's underwear was when he was on the cover of that British tabloid! Who'da guessed? :eek:

he probably got into a gun fight at the mall or something :p

well I hope he's alright

ad why isnt trusc in here defending himself. Looking at teh title of this thread, he obviously believes that this study is conclusive proof that Saddam is still hiding WMD's in his underwears.
Maybe he actually read it and discovered it wasn't what he originally thought it was by the title; as I discovered in one of his earlier threads he doesn't read the articles he posts.

So THATS what the bulge in Saddam's underwear was when he was on the cover of that British tabloid! Who'da guessed? :eek:


Well I belive Saddams exact words were "Stop staring at my missle!"

Maybe he actually read it and discovered it wasn't what he originally thought it was by the title; as I discovered in one of his earlier threads he doesn't read the articles he posts.

yeah plus he's all caught up in defending his hatred for Jane Fondu

It's amazing how many people even give a crap about that subject - lol

I don't know why I even participated. I guess because it's more of a debate on being anti-war in my mind.

Why is that? Because I try to put things into perspective? Thank you for proving that you ignore people who don't think like you.
No. Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear.

I meant that after noting your response on this topic, I feel as though your opinion on this topic can safely be ignored. :)

yeah plus he's all caught up in defending his hatred for Jane Fondu

It's amazing how many people even give a crap about that subject - lol

I don't know why I even participated. I guess because it's more of a debate on being anti-war in my mind.
It doesn't help the fact that he's offline either. Couldn't take the heat! I don't even know if I posted in that thread, looked at it a couple times then said "nah," but I did notice one thing: the title doesn't even make sense!! "...spitting on Iraqi veterans"? lol, not "American veterans returning from Iraq"? :D

... why isnt trusc in here defending himself. Looking at teh title of this thread, he obviously believes that this study is conclusive proof that Saddam is still hiding WMD's in his underwears.
Um ... noooo. I happen to think that Saddam's die-hard supporters had plenty of time to move any WMDs they may have had into another country, perhaps Syria, which seems to have a very porus border with Iraq. I realize there is no proof of this, which is one of the reasons I usually don't post on threads dealing with the subject. :p

yay! he's back on! :D

Maybe he actually read it and discovered it wasn't what he originally thought it was by the title; as I discovered in one of his earlier threads he doesn't read the articles he posts.
Oh, BS! I do too, and you know it. Stop casting aspersions. :p

It doesn't help the fact that he's offline either. Couldn't take the heat! I don't even know if I posted in that thread, looked at it a couple times then said "nah," but I did notice one thing: the title doesn't even make sense!! "...spitting on Iraqi veterans"? lol, not "American veterans returning from Iraq"? :D
American veterans of the Vietnam war are called "Vietnam veterans." It makes sense to me that veterans of the Iraq war would be referred to as "Irag veterans." But you are correct that I should have dropped the "i" in the original title. I can change it if it really bothers you. ;)

Oh, BS! I do too, and you know it. Stop casting aspersions. :p
lol that's why you repeatedly spelled Karl Rove with a "C" even though it was spelled right in the first paragraph of the article? :D

American veterans of the Vietnam war are called "Vietnam veterans." It makes sense to me that veterans of the Iraq war would be referred to as "Irag veterans." But you are correct that I should have dropped the "i" in the original title. I can change it if it really bothers you. ;)
lol, it's fine!

(Irag?) :D

lol that's why you repeatedly spelled Karl Rove with a "C" even though it was spelled right in the first paragraph of the article? :D
And that's the most cogent proof you can come up with? Oh, come'on. You can do better than that. I expect more out of you! :D

many of the soliders also got brain cancer from a neurotoxin called aspertain. It was experimented with as a chemical agent by the U.S. in the 50's. This, however, was not an experiment on our on soliders or anything like that but rather it was a beverage. Diet soda, like that so generously donated by the Coca-Cola company to the troops, contains the aformentioned nerve agent. Furthermore, when raised to more than 70 degrees farenheight it's toxicity doubles. So perhaps the large number of cancer cases are related to the soda taht sat in the brutal desert sun for hours on end.

And that's the most cogent proof you can come up with? Oh, come'on. You can do better than that. I expect more out of you! :D
That's more proof than we've been given for invading Iraq! lol :p

many of the soliders also got brain cancer from a neurotoxin called aspertain. It was experimented with as a chemical agent by the U.S. in the 50's. This, however, was not an experiment on our on soliders or anything like that but rather it was a beverage. Diet soda, like that so generously donated by the Coca-Cola company to the troops, contains the aformentioned nerve agent. Furthermore, when raised to more than 70 degrees farenheight it's toxicity doubles. So perhaps the large number of cancer cases are related to the soda taht sat in the brutal desert sun for hours on end.
And isn't that the chemical that used to be in the sugar free sweetener that Rumsfeld passed by the FDA as soon as Reagan was elected? Even though he knew it was toxic, there was a huge business waiting for him and got it legalized anyway.

COMMENTARY: American soldiers are dying due to the WMD sarin that Saddam didn't have? Hmmm.


Cancer Linked to Nerve Agent (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_cancer_072605,00.html?ESRC=army.nl)


USA Today | July 26, 2005

For the first time, a study has found an increase in brain-cancer deaths among Gulf War veterans who might have been exposed to the nerve agent Sarin by the destruction of Iraqi weapons in 1991.

About 100,000 of the 350,000 Army soldiers in the Persian Gulf could have been exposed to Sarin after soldiers blew up two large ammunition caches in Khamisiyah, Iraq, in March 1991, according to a study commissioned by the military and performed by the Institute of Medicine. The institute advises the government on health policy.

At the time, the military didn't know that the destroyed Iraqi rockets contained Sarin, says Michael Kilpatrick, deputy director for the Deployment Health Support Directorate in the Department of Defense. Soldiers showed no signs of exposure to chemical warfare.

Later, however, United Nations inspectors found that some of the weapons contained Sarin, which can cause convulsions and death. The military has since contacted about 300,000 veterans who were in or near areas that might have been affected. The potential "hazard area," where shifting winds could have carried traces of chemicals, extended at times as far as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

According to the study, soldiers inside the hazard area were about twice as likely as those outside it to die from brain cancer. Because the actual number of brain-cancer cases was small, the overall mortality rate was the same for veterans in the hazard area and outside the area, according to the study, published in the American Journal of Public Health.

Among unexposed soldiers, researchers found a brain-cancer death rate of 12 per 100,000 from 1991 to 2000, says William Page, director of the study. During the same period, researchers found 25 brain-cancer deaths per 100,000 veterans who were exposed.

"It's a doubling of risk, but it's still a pretty small risk," says Page, a senior program officer at the Institute of Medicine.

The study did not address "Gulf War syndrome," as some have called the collection of ailments experienced by returning veterans. It examined whether soldiers possibly exposed to the destruction of Iraqi weapons were more likely to die for any reason. The study also singled out specific diseases: breathing problems, infections, circulatory problems, digestive ailments, accidents and suicides, as well as four types of cancer.

The study's authors note that Sarin has never been shown to cause cancer. Page suggests that researchers follow veterans to see whether the risk of brain cancer, which is believed to develop over 10 to 20 years, changes over time. Page also notes that the study doesn't prove that being in the hazard area caused brain cancer.

Melissa Bondy, a professor of epidemiology at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, questions why only one or two days of exposure would increase brain-cancer mortality. Other experts note that the study could shed light on the causes of brain tumors, about which doctors know little.

"It's a very solid study," says Faith Davis, a professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago. "It needs to be taken seriously."


Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but are you actually still trying to defend the war? These are veterans of the First Gulf War, not the Second. I would point you to the very first sentence. They were exposed to sarin DESTROYING his WMD. Between the First and Second Gulf Wars, there are more than ten years and a lot of UN pressure. Saddam had weapons during the First War. I never heard anybody deny this, even the most rabidly anti-war. They were either entirely expended during that conflict or expended or destroyed between the conflicts. You're clinging to a justification even the Administration has given up on. The war in Iraq is indefensible. He had no remaining WMD, short of two decayed old shells with chemicals that used to be sarin, but broke down. You can't claim it was terrorist connections either-that's entirely discredited. The current crop of terrorists are foreigners who have come in since the war. You can't claim it was freedom-there are quite a few states that needed liberating that were much better candidates. It was vengeance and oil.

That's more proof than we've been given for invading Iraq! lol :p
LOL! Now THERE'S the Achtung_45 we've all come to know and love! :D

Thats utter crap.

If this were anything remotely like evidence, then the Bush administation would be hopping up and down screaming "See! See! We told you he had them!", and touting this as a victory.

Instead, the search had stopped becuase we havent found anything.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but are you actually still trying to defend the war? These are veterans of the First Gulf War, not the Second. I would point you to the very first sentence. They were exposed to sarin DESTROYING his WMD. Between the First and Second Gulf Wars, there are more than ten years and a lot of UN pressure. Saddam had weapons during the First War. I never heard anybody deny this, even the most rabidly anti-war. They were either entirely expended during that conflict or expended or destroyed between the conflicts. You're clinging to a justification even the Administration has given up on. The war in Iraq is indefensible. He had no remaining WMD, short of two decayed old shells with chemicals that used to be sarin, but broke down. You can't claim it was terrorist connections either-that's entirely discredited. The current crop of terrorists are foreigners who have come in since the war. You can't claim it was freedom-there are quite a few states that needed liberating that were much better candidates. It was vengeance and oil.
I'm not trying to defend starting the Iraq conflict by making reference to "WMDs." That's a dead horse. I do think, however, that the war can be justified on moral grounds. Saddam was a tyrant, and extending democracy is a worthy cause, regardless of how belated.

I'm not trying to defend starting the Iraq conflict by making reference to "WMDs." That's a dead horse. I do think, however, that the war can be justified on moral grounds. Saddam was a tyrant, and extending democracy is a worthy cause, regardless of how belated.


Sure, If you define "Democracy" as to mean "Hostile Military Occupation for the Next Ten Years"

I expected you to try and minimize this. Fortunately, you can safely be ignored.Minimize what? The findings sound pretty minimal to me. You've got 25 cases compared with 12? That's pretty weak statistical evidence and even if the margin of error was 0 (which it isn't), a doubling of the risk isn't that significant because the risk is quite minimal to begin with. Obviously, exposure to dangerous chemicals like sarin should be avoided and what happend is unfortunate, but it apparently wasn't known that the weapons contained sarin at the time. Shit happens. :(

This hardly seems to compare with what happend with agent orange or what seems to be the case with DU. In both cases, the government was/is pretending that there's no problem at all. I was working with a Vietnam vet with diabetes when the military admitted a cause and effect relationship between agent orange and diabetes. He was pissed. I first heard DU being touted as a possible cause of gulf-war syndrome, while I was in the Army about 5 years ago. Yet, the military will not stop using DU, despite not actually knowing how dangerous it really is. But I can understand. The long term health effects on soldiers and local civilians are important, but not as important as the imediate mission.

And A-45 is right, nobody's claiming that Iraq never had chemical or biological weapons. If you want to know what Saddam had when, just ask Scott Ritter.

Minimize what? The findings sound pretty minimal to me. You've got 25 cases compared with 12? That's pretty weak statistical evidence and even if the margin of error was 0 (which it isn't), a doubling of the risk isn't that significant because the risk is quite minimal to begin with. Obviously, exposure to dangerous chemicals like sarin should be avoided and what happend is unfortunate, but it apparently wasn't known that the weapons contained sarin at the time. Shit happens. :(

Just because there is 25 reported cases, does not mean more were not exposed to it.

And A-45 is right, nobody's claiming that Iraq never had chemical or biological weapons. If you want to know what Saddam had when, just ask Scott Ritter.

Scott Ritter? You want to believe that idiot? That guy flipped over to Saddam's side a long time ago.

Just because there is 25 reported cases, does not mean more were not exposed to it.



Scott Ritter? You want to believe that idiot? That guy flipped over to Saddam's side a long time ago.I believe Scott Ritter because he's the guy who should've known what he was talking about and it certainly seems to be the case that he did. Try and compare his statements prior to the invasion of Iraq with those of Condi Rice, or GWB, and tell me who's the idiot.

"While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq. ... Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections." -Ritter

"He's trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year." - Condoleeza Rice in PBS interview, 7/30/03

"[Iraq] could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." - George Bush, 10/8/02

"This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." - George Bush, 9/28/02

I'm not trying to defend starting the Iraq conflict by making reference to "WMDs." That's a dead horse. I do think, however, that the war can be justified on moral grounds. Saddam was a tyrant, and extending democracy is a worthy cause, regardless of how belated.

Here is a hint for you: if that is the point you are actually trying to make with the thread, then actually stating something even vaguely relevant to it in the first post might just help.

Here's the totality of your original input into the first message...

Soldiers die of brain cancer years after exposure to Saddam's WMD.
COMMENTARY: American soldiers are dying due to the WMD sarin that Saddam didn't have? Hmmm.

Your a fucking moron.

If you're set on breaking the rules on flaming, at least do us the favour of learning the difference between "your" and "you're".

We were all aware Saddam had Sarin in 1991.

He began producing it in 1984, we sent people over to show him how.

US soldiers blew it up and infected themselves in 1991, idiots.

No stockpile has been found since we invaded in 2003.

If the goal of this thread was to criticize the first Bush administration or the military for exposing soldiers to harmful chemicals without proper protective equipment, it might have made for an interesting thread. But as an attempt to somehow say that since he had it back then he has it now its quite the braindead thread. Regardless of what Eutrusca said his/her intentions are now the opening post still clearly says:

COMMENTARY: American soldiers are dying due to the WMD sarin that Saddam didn't have? Hmmm.

There is no way that this could be interpreted as anything else since no one ever denied he had Sarin gas back in the first Gulf war.

Um ... noooo. I happen to think that Saddam's die-hard supporters had plenty of time to move any WMDs they may have had into another country, perhaps Syria, which seems to have a very porus border with Iraq. I realize there is no proof of this, which is one of the reasons I usually don't post on threads dealing with the subject. :p

If he had them and he knew an attack was imminent, why wouldn't he keep them to use against the US military? I'm sure he never believed that he could win a fight against us. Why not use things to your advantage. He could have even said that if he was invaded he would bomb his own people as a possible deterrant. He was a sick mass murdering dictator, was he not?

And this very porous border could not be watched by the US since they knew there was a chance something like that could happen? Was the US restricted from being in Syria to at least gaurd that side? Can satelites not see this border? Is the US military that incompetent?

You are quick to call anti-war folk conspiracy theorists and put them down when they have little to no evidence to back up their claims, yet you do it yourself and somehow thats okay with you.

Also, this lack of proof that you have keeps you from posting in threads dealing with this but you will start a thread dealing with it and not defend your claims?

You are quick to call anti-war folk conspiracy theorists and put them down when they have little to no evidence to back up their claims, yet you do it yourself and somehow thats okay with you.

Also, this lack of proof that you have keeps you from posting in threads dealing with this but you will start a thread dealing with it and not defend your claims?

I always knew there was a good reason for digging you, Sumamba.
Thanks for the post - I'd have hated to have to say it myself, 'cause I know Eutrusca would never reply directly to anything I'd post on the subject.

. How's the girlfriend, girlfriend?

I always knew there was a good reason for digging you, Sumamba.
Thanks for the post - I'd have hated to have to say it myself, 'cause I know Eutrusca would never reply directly to anything I'd post on the subject.

. How's the girlfriend, girlfriend?

:fluffle:

Well I've made a few statements in this thread that I was hoping Eut would reply to but I suppose they are just too much to deal with, though I'm sure he will find some condescending way to tell me why he didn't, if he even approaches the subject at all. Or maybe he will now that I made this post just to prove me wrong.

.The gf is marvelous! Thanks for asking. She got a $1000 bonus at work and a promotion to paralegal because they are happy with how hard she works. I wish I had her work ethic.

Well I've made a few statements in this thread that I was hoping Eut would reply to but I suppose they are just too much to deal with, though I'm sure he will find some condescending way to tell me why he didn't, if he even approaches the subject at all.
Oh, the plight of the under-appreciated, unfairly-criticized, self-appointed policemen of the world. *sniff, sniff* And of course, it had absolutely nothing to do with using tritium-tipped bullets and missiles. It was all due to stuff that according to the article Eut posted, doesn't actually promote cancer.

COMMENTARY: American soldiers are dying due to the WMD sarin that Saddam didn't have? Hmmm.

Leave it to a rabid conservative to make a magical connection between this story and current events, where there clearly is NONE. Saddam had WMD in 1991. Whether Saddam had WMD in 1991 or not was not the question when discussing invading Iraq in 2003. The question was whether he had WMD in 2003. And he did not. Your administration swore that he did, but they've been conclusively proven to be lying bastards.

Leave it to a rabid conservative...

You've played right into his hands. Now you've given him an opportunity to ignore every argument made and increase his postcount by claiming he's a "centrist". Whatever the hell that means to him.

You've played right into his hands. Now you've given him an opportunity to ignore every argument made and increase his postcount by claiming he's a "centrist". Whatever the hell that means to him.
It means he's a centrist of the ego- variety.

You've played right into his hands. Now you've given him an opportunity to ignore every argument made and increase his postcount by claiming he's a "centrist". Whatever the hell that means to him.

I wasn't aware he needed excuses to post-whore. Anyway, there's more than one person contributing, here.

*Edit: and I think we're all painfully aware of his official political misnomer. What difference does it make to any of us if he insists on being something he's not?

Hmm let me see Eutrusca psot something here and it reads like that what a surprise. Amazingly like so many people here is that there was not mention of depleted uranium. Amazingly after the first Gulf war with all the DU in southern Iraq suddenly children get born without brains...I also read the southern area of Iraq has the highest level of deformed babies in the world why do i think certain members here wouldn't post something like that here. :p

Hmm let me see Eutrusca psot something here and it reads like that what a surprise. Amazingly like so many people here is that there was not mention of depleted uranium. Amazingly after the first Gulf war with all the DU in southern Iraq suddenly children get born without brains...I also read the southern area of Iraq has the highest level of deformed babies in the world why do i think certain members here wouldn't post something like that here. :p


Well don't worry - DU only has a half-life of 4.5 Billion years or something. It maybe have spread around the entire planet, but it'll degrade in no time flat.

Hmm let me see Eutrusca psot something here and it reads like that what a surprise. Amazingly like so many people here is that there was not mention of depleted uranium. Amazingly after the first Gulf war with all the DU in southern Iraq suddenly children get born without brains...I also read the southern area of Iraq has the highest level of deformed babies in the world why do i think certain members here wouldn't post something like that here. :p

Did you not get the memo? The lives of American soldiers have more intrinsic value than any other humans (well, except maybe American cops, back home). Hence no reference to civilian cancers, and of course no mention of spent-tritium-tipped munitions used heavily in the First Gulf War.

Nahhh, it's all about Sarin, which the article maintains doesn't cause cancer, and moreover, it's all about an army of Christ-like figures who have selflessly died for all American sins on the crucifix of war. How dare you not show proper obeisance and worship at the feet of the oft-beleagured American fighting man and their Overseers?

*switches off sarcasm-o-meter*

*thinks better of it, switches it back on*

Well don't worry - DU only has a half-life of 4.5 Billion years or something. It maybe have spread around the entire planet, but it'll degrade in no time flat.

Thank god for that you got me really up tight for moment. :D

Did you not get the memo? The lives of American soldiers have more intrinsic value than any other humans (well, except maybe American cops, back home). Hence no reference to civilian cancers, and of course no mention of spent-tritium-tipped munitions used heavily in the First Gulf War.

Nahhh, it's all about Sarin, which the article maintains doesn't cause cancer, and moreover, it's all about an army of Christ-like figures who have selflessly died for all American sins on the crucifix of war. How dare you not show proper obeisance and worship at the feet of the oft-beleagured American fighting man and their Overseers?

*switches off sarcasm-o-meter*

*thinks better of it, switches it back on*

One of the best things I've read in a while.

For those of you that might be stupid enough to post something positive about DU here is a little article.

Iraqi cancers, birth defects blamed on U.S. depleted uranium

By LARRY JOHNSON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER FOREIGN DESK EDITOR

SOUTHERN DEMILITARIZED ZONE, Iraq -- On the "Highway of Death," 11 miles north of the Kuwait border, a collection of tanks, armored personnel carriers and other military vehicles are rusting in the desert.

They also are radiating nuclear energy.
Fatma Rakwan and her mom
Zoom Paul Kitagaki Jr. / P-I
Six-year-old Fatma Rakwan, being held by her mother at the Basra Hospital for Maternity and Children, was recently diagnosed with leukemia.

In 1991, the United States and its Persian Gulf War allies blasted the vehicles with armor-piercing shells made of depleted uranium -- the first time such weapons had been used in warfare -- as the Iraqis retreated from Kuwait. The devastating results gave the highway its name.

Today, nearly 12 years after the use of the super-tough weapons was credited with bringing the war to a swift conclusion, the battlefield remains a radioactive toxic wasteland -- and depleted uranium munitions remain a mystery.

Although the Pentagon has sent mixed signals about the effects of depleted uranium, Iraqi doctors believe that it is responsible for a significant increase in cancer and birth defects in the region. Many researchers outside Iraq, and several U.S. veterans organizations, agree; they also suspect depleted uranium of playing a role in Gulf War Syndrome, the still-unexplained malady that has plagued hundreds of thousands of Gulf War veterans.

Depleted uranium is a problem in other former war zones as well. Yesterday, U.N. experts said they found radioactive hot spots in Bosnia resulting from the use of depleted uranium during NATO air strikes in 1995.

With another war in Iraq perhaps imminent, scientists and others are concerned that the side effects of depleted uranium munitions -- still a major part of the U.S. arsenal -- will cause serious illnesses or deaths in a new generation of U.S. soldiers as well as Iraqis.

THE DANGERS

Depleted uranium, known as DU, is a highly dense metal that is the byproduct of the process during which fissionable uranium used to manufacture nuclear bombs and reactor fuel is separated from natural uranium. DU remains radioactive for about 4.5 billion years.

Uranium, a weakly radioactive element, occurs naturally in soil and water everywhere on Earth, but mainly in trace quantities. Humans ingest it daily in minute quantities.
Dr. Khajak Vartaanian
Zoom Paul Kitagaki Jr. / P-I
Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a radiation expert, holds a Geiger counter next to a hole in an Iraqi tank destroyed by depleted uranium weapons in the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The shell holes show 1,000 times the normal background radiation level.

DU shell holes in the vehicles along the Highway of Death are 1,000 times more radioactive than background radiation, according to Geiger counter readings done for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer by Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a nuclear medicine expert from the Iraq Department of Radiation Protection in Basra, and Col. Amal Kassim of the Iraqi navy.

The desert around the vehicles was 100 times more radioactive than background radiation; Basra, a city of 1 million people, some 125 miles away, registered only slightly above background radiation level.

But the radioactivity is only one concern about DU munitions.

A second, potentially more serious hazard is created when a DU round hits its target. As much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn up on impact, creating a firestorm of ceramic DU oxide particles. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain.

Once lodged in the soil, the munitions can pollute the environment and create up to a hundredfold increase in uranium levels in ground water, according to the U.N. Environmental Program.

Studies show it can remain in human organs for years.

The U.S. Army acknowledges the hazards in a training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."

Just six months before the Gulf War, the Army released a report on DU predicting that large amounts of DU dust could be inhaled by soldiers and civilians during and after combat.

Infantry were identified as potentially receiving the highest exposures, and the expected health outcomes included cancers and kidney problems.

The report also warned that public knowledge of the health and environmental effects of depleted uranium could lead to efforts to ban DU munitions.

But today the Pentagon plays down the effects. Officials refer queries on DU munitions to the latest government report on the subject, last updated on Dec. 13, 2000, which said DU is "40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium."

The report also said, "Gulf War exposures to depleted uranium (DU) have not to date produced any observable adverse health effects attributable to DU's chemical toxicity or low-level radiation. . . ."

In response to written queries, the Defense Department said, "The U.S. Military Services use DU munitions because of DU's superior lethality against armor and other hard targets."

It said DU munitions are "war reserve munitions; that is, used for combat and not fired for training purposes," with the exception that DU munitions may be fired at sea for weapon calibration purposes.

In addition to Iraq and Bosnia, DU munitions were used in Kosovo and Serbia in 1999.
Hamdin and brother Amhid
Zoom Paul Kitagaki Jr. / P-I
Hamdin and his brother Amhid are receiving follow-up treatment after being treated successfully for leukemia two years ago at the Basra Hospital for Maternity and Children.

Also in 1999, a United Nations subcommission considered DU hazardous enough to call for an initiative banning its use worldwide. The initiative has remained in committee, blocked primarily by the United States, according to Karen Parker, a lawyer with the International Educational Development/Humanitarian Law Project, which has consultative status at the United Nation

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

Nice stuff.

Hands up who believes that Eutrusca has been studying debating tactics at the feet of the acknowledged master* on the basis of this thread?








* The Red Arrow.

Hands up who believes that Eutrusca has been studying debating tactics at the feet of the acknowledged master* on the basis of this thread?








* The Red Arrow.


Perhaps they are split personalities of the same person!

Hmm let me see Eutrusca psot something here and it reads like that what a surprise. Amazingly like so many people here is that there was not mention of depleted uranium. Amazingly after the first Gulf war with all the DU in southern Iraq suddenly children get born without brains...I also read the southern area of Iraq has the highest level of deformed babies in the world why do i think certain members here wouldn't post something like that here. :p
apparently you didn't read the first page, as I brought that up in my very first post.

apparently you didn't read the first page, as I brought that up in my very first post.

look I'm very sorry I didn't read your post, but unfortunatly I don't spend my all my time on line so i only really have time to read the posts that catch my eye, yours didn't sorry.

Excuse me while I laugh till my sides crack and my ass falls off...

http://www.cohguru.com/forum/images/smilies/lmao.gif

*Ahem* Right... I feel better now.

Eutrusca is old enough to be your father, grandfather maybe even. Besides that, "Outfoxed" is bullshit^16 and his source wasn't Fox.

Oh and one more thing, I'm going to be Frank with you.

*Channeling Frank*

Your a fucking moron.

Frank can be very blunt at times.

And excuse me to tell you that Bushrepublican is an older soldier then you or your latent rightwing gayfriend Etrusca is, a kiddo. Besides your bullshit and really biased nazi posts, I ask you to crawl back in your cave and continue watching Fox, BTW you're such a blind moron that you even have not seen "Outfoxed", before giving your opinion. Well that is the typical way it goes with creationist republicans and other extremists (nazis and other fascist friends of your family).
Rule nr 1, you, as a 16 year old, first watch it before commenting with adults.
You're a waste of time and pathetic. I really have compassion with the poor midwest bastards that accidentaly gave a non wished birth to you. :D You are indeed a reason why euthanasia should be obliged for some mid west morons. Poor thing. :rolleyes:

"Outfoxed" is bullshit^16 and his source wasn't Fox.

Try watching 'Sticks and Stones' by the Fifth Estate. Their source is Fox.

Oh and one more thing, I'm going to be Frank with you. *snips*
This last bit wasn't especially clever. This just serves to underscore a thorough-going lack of wit, something I'd strive to not draw attention to.