Terrorism against the world, terrorism against its own.

That just doesn't jive with reality, Bill. The people and the children of Iraq were healthy and strong all thru that period when the USA was supporting Saddam, illegally supplying him with weapons, aiding him in using chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds.

I guess you're arguing that they are the equal of Saddam, that they are complicit in any murderous actions taken against his own people, because you know, the USA is. All those years that the US, later complained, about what a monster Saddam was, they were his buddy, they were actively helping him do what he did.

Is the real universe not a bitch when it does not support your fantasies?


http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2d7e8772-ac5c-4721-8f4a-8e9b92f79ab4

DU is a life saver for American soldiers. Because it is 70% more dense than lead, and when alloyed with tungsten tends to sharpen rather than flatten on impact, a DU round will zip right through enemy armor. It then ignites causing ammunition and fuel to explode and burn, killing all the head-chopping Islamic fascists inside and thus saving hundreds of humans. Equivalent lead ammunition would just bounce off. DU’s effectiveness reduces the number of shots needed to kill an enemy, thus reducing the risk posed by stray bullets to civilians. DU is one of the reasons American deaths in Iraq are 3,250 compared to 58,000 in Vietnam or 33,000 in Korea. Low casualties are a major source of frustration for anti-Americans. As Michael Moore explained April 14, 2004, "… the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let….”

Natural uranium contains on average 0.71% radioactive U-235 and 99.28% U-238. US Department of Defense processing of natural uranium to extract the U-235 for nuclear power or nuclear weapons leaves depleted uranium containing only 0.2% U-235 and 99.8% U-238. While U-235 is the highly radioactive material found in atom bombs or nuclear power plants, U-238 emits zero radiation. Far from being a radiation danger, depleted uranium is actually used as a radiation shield around nuclear reactors on Navy ships, submarines and in civilian reactors.

According to Marvin H. Wilkening of the Department of Physics, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, the soils of Hawai`i naturally contain trace amounts of uranium which release just under one atom of radon gas per square centimeter every two seconds. This is why realtors are required to warn homebuyers of radon dangers. The University of Michigan researchers estimate that nationwide an average of 4840 pounds"more than two tons-- of uranium is present in the top one foot of soil per square mile (also 26,400 lbs of radioactive thorium). If Hawai`i soils are average, over 31 million pounds of uranium (and 170 million pounds of thorium) are present in the top foot of soil state wide "all entirely natural.

If the Hawaii Department of Health goes looking for DU near Schofield, they will be examining soil samples naturally laden with natural uranium in order to find any evidence of the less radioactive depleted uranium. Will they be able to distinguish between DU and natural uranium in trace amounts? To do so requires very advanced technology. Illogically, any discovery of the less dangerous, less radioactive DU, in the midst of the more radioactive natural uranium will be hailed by the so-called-environmentalists as an environmental disaster wrought by the military. HB 1452 eliminates any dispute, deciding in advance that: “depleted uranium contamination would only occur because of military operations.”

How radioactive is depleted uranium? The International Atomic Energy Administration points out, “DU is 3 million times less radioactive than radium still found in many old luminous watches and 10 million times less radioactive than what is used in fire detectors.” DU-oxide was being used as a yellow pigment for glass and ceramics as recently as 1999. DU is also used in many commercial airliners as a balancing weight on ailerons and in helicopter rotors. A Boeing 747 may have between 880 and 3300 lbs of depleted uranium used as a tail balance. When activists fly to Honolulu, they bring a couple of hundred pounds of so-called DU “contamination” with them in the plane. Without tail balance the plane would likely crash, thus forcing cancellation of their anti-DU protest.

In a typical example of anti-DU rhetoric, the “Moku Loa” chapter of the Sierra Club claims: “The Super Ferry is Super Scary! …will the 20-ton Stryker tanks be transported on HSF, complete with depleted uranium ammunition? … They fire weapons containing depleted uranium (DU), which is radioactive and potentially health-threatening.” Superferry opponent Juan Williams writes in the November 20, 2006 Haleakala Times, “We can’t afford to have depleted uranium released and spread throughout Hawaii (on the Superferry).”

If DU is that dangerous, the logical response would be to shut down the airline industry to protect the public from the massive amounts of DU used in airplanes and helicopters. The sudden lack of airplanes would be a strong argument for the Superferry, not against it. But somehow Williams and the Sierra Club overlook this, possibly because shutting down civilian airliners would not achieve the goal of disarming America. Also, while an airline shutdown would achieve the goal of stopping all development; such a demand would bring about an economic depression, anger almost everyone in Hawaii, and thereby clearly expose the false environmentalists for what they are. Perhaps what is needed is for the legislature to attain the same level of appreciation for the importance of national defense.

“Gulf War Syndrome” afflicts hundreds or even thousands of veterans of the First Gulf War. Instead of searching for a cause and a treatment, anti-American propagandists use Gulf War Syndrome as an excuse to attack DU. They would have veterans believe that American use of DU must be the cause of Gulf-War Syndrome, ignoring the possibility that the disorders are caused by left over chemical munitions and residuals from the Iran-Iraq war, by poisons released in the hundreds of oil-well fires started under Saddam’s orders, or by multiple causes. They also ignore Iraqi military use of Soviet-supplied DU weapons.

The rhetoric on DU can get pretty hot. For instance Pauline Rigby, writing on the Green Left Weekly website in 2004 claims, “Weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq, yet the country is today contaminated forever, because weapons of mass destruction have been used against it. Thousands of tonnes of radioactive waste were dumped on Iraq during Gulf Wars I and II and during the intervening years when bombing continued through the use of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition. The contamination of Iraq with DU has been described as the equivalent of the unleashing of 13 Hiroshima-type bombs on the country.”

Rigby is lying on every point. Coalition forces discovered WMD in Iraq totaling 500 chemical warheads. In addition US forces removed what the BBC describes as “About 1.8 metric tons of ‘yellow cake’ and 500 tons of unrefined uranium” from Tuwaitha, Iraq where Saddam’s regime had stored it in hopes of re-starting Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. When US forces arrived, they found ignorant looters dumping Saddam’s uranium in order to salvage 55-gallon drums for sale to local villagers as water tanks. US action has sharply reduced the amount of radioactivity released by uranium in Iraq"exactly the opposite of the very common and typical lies told by cheap anti-American propagandists.

In another example, Brita Mae Rose of “CounterPunch” writes, “Depleted Uranium has a half life of 4.7 billion years--that means thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children will suffer for tens of thousands of years to come. This is what I call terrorism."

Wrong. Depleted uranium has a long half-life because it emits so little radiation: Far less than many natural radiation sources. No Iraqi children will be affected by DU radiation; they are infinitely more at risk from radiation from the bright desert sun"and from the fascist Islamist baby killers who are inspired by propagandists such as Ms. Rose to believe they can defeat America by killing Iraqi children in front of TV cameras.

Marti Townsend of the pseudo-environmentalist group “KEHEA” writes in a March 29 letter to Senator Roz Baker (D-Maui), “According to the International Atomic Energy Agency exposure to DU " especially when inhaled " triggers mutation of genes is linked to extreme and debilitating birth defects, nervous system disorders, terminal kidney disease, and many types of cancer. The DU at Schofield Barracks poses a threat to the majority of Oahu residents.”

Wrong. Here is what the IAEA really says: “The most detailed ongoing study on the health effects of DU exposure is of 33 friendly fire veterans of the Gulf War, most of whom have embedded DU shrapnel in their bodies that cannot be removed. To date none has developed any abnormalities due to uranium chemical toxicity or radio toxicity, despite showing greatly increased levels of uranium in their urine…. United Nation's Environment Programme (UNEP) studies in 2001 (Kosovo), 2002 (Serbia and Montenegro) and 2003 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) - to which IAEA experts contributed - found it was highly unlikely that a reported increase in the risk of cancer in the Balkan regions could be associated with the residues of DU munitions used there during the war in the mid-1990s. It found the probability of significant exposure to local population was very low.”

When all the lies about DU radiation are exposed, the fallback argument is that it is poisonous when ingested or inhaled. This is true, but then so is lead. Lead toxicity is suspected by physicians when blood lead levels reach 200 micrograms per liter. By the logic of the anti-DU protesters, the US should also ban lead ammunition. The result would be complete US disarmament leading to worldwide warfare and a new dark age. Billions would perish. A better plan would be: don’t eat lead, likewise don’t eat uranium.

As any scientist knows, a real study must have a “control” to determine if uranium levels found near Schofield are unusual. The logical choice would be to do a control study of the Hawaii State Capitol Building and its inhabitants.

If legislators weigh on average 200 pounds each and are no more radioactive than the average person, then it is likely that their bodies contain together 7600 micrograms of non-depleted uranium. If the average legislator weights 300 pounds it would be 11,400 micrograms of uranium. This does not include staffers, visitors or lobbyists"some of whom may be even more radioactive than legislators.

Many common building materials contain uranium. According to the University of Michigan researchers, drywall contains on average 1000 parts per billion uranium as well as 3000 parts per billion thorium. Clay brick contains on average, 8200 parts per billion uranium and 10800 parts per billion thorium. Cement has on average, 3400 parts per billion uranium and 5100 parts per billion thorium.

If the Big Square Building comprises 100,000 square feet weighing 100 pounds per square foot, and that weight were made up of equal parts drywall, brick, and cement, the ten-million-pound building contains about 42 pounds of non-depleted uranium and 63 pounds of radioactive thorium. Jim Albertini of the misnamed Malu-Aina Peace Center writes March 27, “We must not tolerate having any depleted uranium in our environment….” By this logic the legislature should immediately be shut down and quarantined as a toxic waste dump.

This could all work out quite well.

LINKS:

http://www.idust.net

http://www.idust.net/States/States.htm

terrorism, interesting word/concept, in all of history we've had lots words/concepts to define such activities. reminds me of words like booby traps or landmines but now we have IED's. I'm never really sure when or how word usage adapts to political/contemporary needs.

You know JTT the one thing that you crazies does not seem to understand is going over the top in your claims raised questions that people will check out.

A claim that the normal death rate of children went up 20 percent because of the embargo might just had fly by without any question but when you place a silly high number such as a 1/2 millions you have to laugh out loud.

And claiming that an anti-armor weapon is causing wide spread cancers throughout the middle east and calling it a WMD is also too far over the top.

I do not question that being in the business of recovering metals ETC from burn out tanks might not be too health unless you take precautions but not that children all over the middle east are dying of cancer from the used of DU weapons on the battlefields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions#Infant_and_child_death_rates

Culpability
The Lancet[31] and Unicef studies observed that child mortality decreased in the north and increased in the south between 1994 and 1999 but did not attempt to explain the disparity, or to apportion culpability: "Both the Government of Iraq and the U.N. Sanctions Committee should give priority to contracts for supplies that will have a direct impact on the well-being of children," UNICEF said.[16] However, others did attempt to explain this disparity, or use this to apportion culpability. In The Nation, 2001, David Cortright argued that Iraqi government policy, rather than the UN Sanctions, should be held responsible. He wrote:

The differential between child mortality rates in northern Iraq, where the UN manages the relief program, and in the south-center, where Saddam Hussein is in charge, says a great deal about relative responsibility for the continued crisis. As noted, child mortality rates have declined in the north but have more than doubled in the south-center. ... The tens of thousands of excess deaths in the south-center, compared to the similarly sanctioned but UN-administered north, are also the result of Baghdad's failure to accept and properly manage the UN humanitarian relief effort.[44]

In The New Republic, 2001, Michael Rubin argued that

The difference [t]here is that local Kurdish authorities, in conjunction with the United Nations, spend the money they get from the sale of oil. Everywhere else in Iraq, Saddam does. And when local authorities are determined to get food and medicine to their people--instead of, say, reselling these supplies to finance military spending and palace construction--the current sanctions regime works just fine. Or, to put it more bluntly, the United Nations isn't starving Saddam's people. Saddam is.[45]

However, in Reason Magazine, 2002, Matt Welch acknowledged this but replied that the sanctions are not "'exactly the same' in both parts of Iraq" because

Under the oil-for-food regime, the north, which contains 13 percent of the Iraqi population, receives 13 percent of all oil proceeds, a portion of that in cash. Saddam's regions, with 87 percent of the population, receive 59 percent of the money ... none of it in cash. And there are other factors affecting the north-south disparity...[21]

Author Anthony Arnove also writes that the situation is more complicated:

Sanctions are simply not the same in the north and south. Differences in Iraqi mortality rates result from several factors: the Kurdish north has been receiving humanitarian assistance longer than other regions of Iraq; agriculture in the north is better; evading sanctions is easier in the north because its borders are far more porous; the north receives 22 percent more per capita from the oil-for-food program than the south-central region; and the north receives UN-controlled assistance in currency, while the rest of the country receives only commodities. The south also suffered much more direct bombing...[46]

[edit] Oil for Food
Main article: Oil-for-Food Programme
As the sanctions faced mounting criticism of its humanitarian impacts, several UN resolutions were introduced that allowed Iraq to trade its oil for goods such as food and medicines. The earliest of these resolutions were introduced in 1991.

UN Resolution 706 of 15 August 1991 was introduced to allow the sale of Iraqi oil in exchange for food.[47] UN Resolution 712 of 19 September 1991 confirmed that Iraq could sell up to $1.6 billion US in oil to fund an Oil For Food program.[48]

Iraq was in 1996 allowed under the UN Oil-for-Food Programme (under Security Council Resolution 986) to export $5.2 billion (USD) of oil every 6 months with which to purchase items needed to sustain the civilian population. After an initial refusal, Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in May 1996 for arrangements for the implementation of that resolution to be taken. The Oil-for-Food Programme started in October 1997, and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1998. While improving the conditions of the population, Denis Halliday who oversaw the programme believed it inadequate to compensate for the adverse humanitarian impacts of the sanctions.

Thirty percent of the proceeds were redirected to a Persian Gulf War reparations account.

The U.S. State Department criticized the Iraqi government for inadequately spending this money:

In a stinging letter issued recently, the United Nations has pointed out the extent of Saddam Hussein's callous disregard for the welfare of his own people. ... In the ... six-month phase of the program (June to December, 2000), Saddam Hussein's dereliction in providing for the Iraqi people and the nation's economy is laid bare. During this period, US$7.8 billion were available to Iraq for purchases during this period, yet Iraq submitted purchase applications worth only US$4.26 billion - barely 54 percent of the amount available for purchases to help the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people.[49]

In 2004/5 the Programme became the subject of major media attention over corruption, as Iraq had systematically sold allocations of oil at below-market prices in return for some of the proceeds from the resale outside the scope of the programme. Individuals and companies from dozens of countries were implicated.

[edit] Lifting of sanctions

Washington DC marchers against sanctions and invasion of Iraq, 2002 or 2003The sanctions did not end until the Iraq War. Accepting a large estimate of casualties due to sanctions,[50] Walter Russell Mead argued on behalf of such a war as a better alternative than continuing the sanctions regime, since "Each year of containment is a new Gulf War."[51]

While UN resolutions subsequent to the cessation of hostilities during the Persian Gulf War imposed several requisite responsibilities on Iraq for the removal of sanctions, the largest focus remained on the regime's development of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and in particular its laggard participation in the UNSCOM-led disarmament process required of it. The goal of several western governments had been that the disruptive effects of war and sanction would lead to a critical situation in which Iraqis would in some way effect "regime change", a removal of Saddam Hussein and his closest allies from power.[citation needed]

Hussein was at this point widely seen as a tyrant whose nominal cooperation concealed malign aims. With him in power, there was a general inclination to be skeptical about whether Iraq would disarm, and about whether it would be open and cooperative about the inspection process, particularly after revelations of post-war concealment forced a reevaluation of the extent of the country's biological weapons program.[citation needed]. Hussein's son-in-law is heard speaking of concealing information from UN inspectors on audiotapes released in 2006.[52] [53] Hussein may have considered the many governments' displeasure with him, but particularly that of two veto-wielding UNSC members, the United States and United Kingdom (both of which took the hardest lines on Iraq), as a no-win situation and disincentive to cooperation in the process.[54]

Additionally, UNSCOM had allegedly been infiltrated by British and American spies for purposes other than determining if Iraq possessed WMDs.[55][56] Former inspector Scott Ritter was a prominent source of these charges. While not agreeing with Ritter fully, former UNSCOM chief inspector David Kay said "the longer it continued, the more the intelligence agencies would, often for very legitimate reasons, decide that they had to use the access they got through cooperation with UNSCOM to carry out their missions.".[57][58]

Saddam, who portrayed all this as a violation of Iraq's territorial sovereignty, became less cooperative and more obstructive of UNSCOM activities as the years wore on, and refused access for several years beginning in August 1998. Ultimately Saddam condemned the US for enforcing the sanctions through the UN and demanded nothing less than unconditional lifting of all sanctions on its country, including the weapons sanctions. The US and UN refused to do so out of concern that Saddam's regime would rebuild its once-powerful military and renew its WMD programs with the trade revenues. (But Douglas Feith reports that in 2001 "before the 9/11 attack, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell advocated diluting the multinational economic sanctions, in the hope that a weaker set of sanctions could win stronger and more sustained international support."[59]) Renewed pressure in 2002 led to the entry of UNMOVIC, which received some degree of cooperation but failed to declare Iraq's disarmament immediately prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for which it was withdrawn and became inactive in Iraq.

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who called the sanctions "the most intrusive system of arms control in history",[60] cited the breakdown of the sanctions as one cause or rationale for the Iraq war.[61]

The sanctions regime was finally ended on May 22, 2003 (with certain arms-related exceptions) by paragraph 10 of UN Security Council Resolution 1483.[62]

[edit] Footnotes