@JTT,
JTT wrote:No doubt, GB, a real horror for the family of that young man. But really, it pales into insignificance compared to the war crimes committed by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
No such war crimes.
JTT wrote:It pales into insignificance compared to the horrors heaped upon those peoples by the US/UK.
If they did not want us to defend ourselves from them, then they shouldn't have been massacring us.
JTT wrote:It pales into insignificance when compared to any one tiny instance of the incredible evil that the US and the UK have perpetrated upon the people of Afghanistan.
Oh the horror. We actually tried to bring them democracy.
JTT wrote:Throw a dart at the map and you'll likely hit a country where Muslim women are forced to see incredibly brutal acts as their countries and lives are ruined by the US/UK.
That's what they get for their unprovoked massacres of thousands of innocent civilians. Maybe next time they'll decide not to start a war with us.
Quote:10 Years After Invasion, US Depleted Uranium Continues to Devastate Iraq
US persistent refusal to release data hampering efforts to eradicate contamination
As if cleanup efforts needed data?
Just remove the soil immediately around any destroyed tanks (or in locations immediately around where tanks were once destroyed).
Sheesh! No need to complicate it.
Quote:Despite this and ignoring warnings against the continued use of DU munitions, the findings of the report show that both the U.S. and the U.K. used such weapons far more expansively in Iraq—targeting ordinary vehicles and buildings in highly populated civilian areas.
Nonsense. DU would not be terribly useful against objects other than heavy armor.
Quote:Both the U.S. and the U.K. have failed to admit the widely reported adverse health affects of exposure to DU. However, as the report points out:
New and alarming reports of increased cancer rates and birth malformations emerged in the years after the official ending of the hostilities in Iraq, as well as amongst veterans of Coalition forces who were present during and after the fighting; which again pointed to the use of DU as the cause of these health problems.
Why would anyone admit to fictitious claims?
Quote:The US government has consistently denied confirmation of where it had fired DU weapons. The report, however, shows that between 300 and 365 contaminated sites have been reported by 2006, with likely many more.
"It is unclear exactly how many locations may still be contaminated, or the extent of the risks that civilians face," said the report's author, Wim Zwijnenburg.
LOL!
"Tank destroyed in this spot" = "DU contamination"
"No tank destroyed in this spot" = "No DU contamination"
No need to make it so complicated.
Quote:It also documents evidence that DU munitions were fired at light vehicles, buildings and other civilian infrastructure including the Iraqi Ministry of Planning in Baghdad – casting doubt on official assurances that only armoured vehicles were targeted. "The use of DU in populated areas is alarming," it says, adding that many more contaminated sites are likely to be discovered.
Balderdash.
And even if we did waste DU ammo on a non-armor target, the shells would have just embedded deep into the ground instead of bursting into flame and spreading oxides.
