US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

cicerone imposter wrote:

Some people just don't understand what a lie is.

If they go around asking questions that are none of their business, what does it matter that they are lied to in response?

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Some people just don't understand what a lie is.

If they go around asking questions that are none of their business, what does it matter that they are lied to in response?

Saved for posterity.

0 Replies

Posterity notes with stunned non surprise.

0 Replies

Depleted uranium in ordnance- I read in this thread from Oralloy (he who shrugs) that "the area around a knocked-out tank can be cleaned up"

No it can't- and how many of shells fired hit their intended target? (How many actually have a discrete target?) The shells go everywhere.

There has been a huge increase in babies born with physical defects, serious defects, and stillborn babies, in Afghanistan and Iraq due to the effects of radiation from depleted uranium shells.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

No it can't- and how many of shells fired hit their intended target? (How many actually have a discrete target?) The shells go everywhere.

There has been a huge increase in babies born with physical defects, serious defects, and stillborn babies, in Afghanistan and Iraq due to the effects of radiation from depleted uranium shells.

Depleted Uranium is used in armor piercing shells because that metal oxidizes very rapidly, in effect creating its own penetrating explosive power. It is not used in general purpose munitions. The shells are not everywhere.

I doubt seriously that McTag has any factual basis whatever for his quite unrealistic assertion above concerning infant mortality and birth defects.

0 Replies

Why do you speak of me in the third person, you naughty chap?

Doubt it not; I do not have the link to hand, but I'll try to google for it. I have read this in some serious journalism recently.

(p.s.)

Google gave 44,900 hits about this subject. Here's one:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1112-01.htm

0 Replies

McTag, my friend,

I don't doubt that some journalist has recycled the old stories, with little understanding or concern for the physical facts, or even basic physics, but that should be no suprise.

This sort of allegation was made earlier in the Gulf war (where we used much greater quantities of DU munitions), but was shown to be of little merit or real hazard.

I do think the my third person reference was in keeping with the "addressed-to-no-one-in-particular" character of the previous posts. No intent there to be unfriendly --- just skeptical.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Depleted uranium in ordnance- I read in this thread from Oralloy (he who shrugs) that "the area around a knocked-out tank can be cleaned up"

I was saying it should be cleaned up. Or at least that was what I meant to say.

McTag wrote:

No it can't-

Why not?

At the worst, they could just haul away the topsoil some distance around tanks, and store it at some hazardous waste site.

McTag wrote:

and how many of shells fired hit their intended target? (How many actually have a discrete target?) The shells go everywhere.

The bullets fired from an A-10 probably go everywhere. But I'd think the large DU slugs fired from other tanks would usually find their mark.

However, if the bullet misses, it isn't a problem. It just gets buried deeply in the ground.

The part that would need to be cleaned up is the fine dust that is left over from burning DU after a successful strike (DU ashes, essentially).

It is this dust that should be cleaned up.

McTag wrote:

There has been a huge increase in babies born with physical defects, serious defects, and stillborn babies, in Afghanistan and Iraq due to the effects of radiation from depleted uranium shells.

I am skeptical that there has been such an increase.

And I know that if there is any such increase, nothing has credibly linked it to DU.

The radiation is exceedingly minimal.

0 Replies

Well, read the article given in the link, select some more of the 44,000-odd as a control, and come back and we'll talk.

Near the end of that article is a description of some of the deformities; which I deliberately left out. There has been a 10-fold increase, and rising, since the Gulf War.

0 Replies

After a battle

snipers are active
bombers are common
mines are not uncommon
the military travels about at high speed, and only in armoured vehicles (which are in short supply, btw)

And you're talking about "removing topsoil to a safe area? Hel-lo??
How much are you going to pay the contractors?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

After a battle

snipers are active
bombers are common
mines are not uncommon

And you're talking about "removing topsoil to a safe area? Hel-lo??
How much are you going to pay the contractors?

We could wait until things calmed down.

And we could have our own soldiers do the work if necessary.

But paying contractors whatever they charge for the job is reasonable too.

I'd just consider it all just a part of the cost of using DU.

If we don't want to pay the cost, we shouldn't use DU. And if we use DU, we should be willing to pay the cost.

0 Replies

Yes, let's wait. Cancer works slowly too, sometimes.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

JTT wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If they go around asking questions that are none of their business, what does it matter that they are lied to in response?

Saved for posterity.

Posterity notes with stunned non surprise.

I'm not sure why it's noteworthy, but go ahead.

I'm not so much objecting to us telling what weapons we used. I find the information rather interesting.

I just don't see why it is such a big deal that we used napalm, that it would merit questions being asked about it.

What is the British press going to do if it sinks in that we did shell Fallujah with white phosphorus?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Yes, let's wait. Cancer works slowly too, sometimes.

It would only be a significant problem for people in the vicinity of destroyed tanks.

If things are hazardous enough to make it difficult to clean up, it should be hazardous enough to keep people away from the area.

And even the area around destroyed tanks is not a huge hazard. The level of radioactivity is pretty low.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

What is the British press going to do if it sinks in that we did shell Fallujah with white phosphorus?

Reference:

"Usually we keep the gloves on," said Army Capt. Erik Krivda, of Gaithersburg, the senior officer in charge of the 1st Infantry Division's Task Force 2-2 tactical operations command center. "For this operation, we took the gloves off."

Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.

Kamal Hadeethi, a physician at a regional hospital, said, "The corpses of the mujaheddin which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A35979-2004Nov9

0 Replies

"Yet in a blow to the local community, as many as 17 people, women and children among them, were reported killed in a American airstrike on a compound in continuing fighting in Kunar Province on Friday. The United States military conceded in a statement that civilians had been killed in the airstrike and said that it deeply regretted the loss of innocent lives, but that it had been aiming at a known militant base."

This is from the new york times today. Times this by a few years and 22,000 looks a bit conservative in Iraq. Sorry those sources are not reliable for you... They are taken from head lines - but the U.S isn't counting.

The capt quoted above and yourself in the 'nobodys business' post above treat human life so flippantly and war with so much hubris that in the final analysis I think you will be forced to see its folly.

TF

0 Replies

Too bad Bushites fails to see the hypocrisy of "every life is precious."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Too bad Bushites fails to see the hypocrisy of "every life is precious."

You convince the homocide bombers first. Once you have gotten all of them to stop killing, I will start work on the "Bushites".

0 Replies

Never mind the homicidal/suicidal bombers - they're not using DU ammo.

My question is this:

Since even the delusional posters here admit DU ammo was used in Bosnia, can they point to allegedly increased "cancers, birth defects" and the like IN BOSNIA?

If not - and I checked the medical statistics - how are the Iraq cases to be differentiated from children born to those exposed to poison gas in the Iraq-Iran war or otherwise deprived of vital medications during the Saddam "oil-for-medicines" scam?!

0 Replies

Cicerone - it is not so.

Anyone who has studied African statistics, for instance, knows that 2 out of every 10 children die shortly after birth. This sounds terrifying until you realize the really terrifying statistic lies hidden behind that number - to wit:

ALL THOSE 10 CHILDREN ARE BORN TO ONE SINGLE WOMAN.

There's no need to expand, I hope, but just in case: within 25 years, if all children live, that's 100 people, within 50 years that's one thousand - AND THE ORIGINAL MOTHER ALREADY LIVES ON FOOD AID.

Sure, forgive the debt, it's uncollectable - but WHAT HAPPENED TO our $200 BILLION we sent over already?!

Unless this question can be answered not a single cent should be sent over to Africa except in the form of family planning - all their other problems derive from this one. To see this notice how China managed to enforce its "one child" policy for a quarter century - and THEN saw economic growth; until then the "drought, famine, pestilence, war" model will be allowed to ravage that continent.

0 Replies

US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know