Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

George W Bush's 13 Impeachable Offenses

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Your links go to another BS, absolutely no proof, conspiracy site. Your alledged pictures of chemical warfare burns, are nothing more than normal combat injuries sustained in conventional explosives. The alledged chemical weapons used, were nothing more than regular WP grenades, fired from armored vehicles to make smoke for concealment of movement, and WP artillery rounds called in for the same reason (white phosphorous is not illegal in warfare).

Where is your actual, unrefuteable proof? Your half-baked theory's, and links to BS sites only shows that you are simply ignorant of the real world, and must lash out at those who are doing the living for you.

No # there are hot areas in various locations in Iraq, and I was in many of them. But you are talking of Fallujah in November of 2004, you are talking of chemical attacks on innocents by the US military, you are talking of some mass cover-up that even the totally independant reporters that were with us somehow missed. You are talking out of your ass.

With all these chemicals, at the mercy of the wind. And all these chemicals liberally spread upon the wounded like so much butter...why the hell didn't I get any on me? I was in many areas of Fallujah as we pushed to the north. I was at the hospital for 4 days. I even took a quick airlift ride back to Anaconda to get the mail. Gee golly Wally, not once did I see anyone with chem burns, nobody was sick from inhalation of chems, never was there anyone saying,"hey, how about that mustard gas in the alley over there?"

Well, it didn't happen chum. No matter how many BS links to BS websites or blogs you want to base your silliness off of.

BTW, it's DEPLETED URANIUM, not "irridated" (whatever that means). Depleted means that the metal has been rendered safe. There is more radiation coming off the computer screen you are reading right now, than in any DU round. DU ammo is used by all modern militarys in tank and anti-armor munitions. So there is another dumbass lie you have been telling, dashed to pieces.




posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Army
BTW, it's DEPLETED URANIUM, not "irridated" (whatever that means). Depleted means that the metal has been rendered safe. There is more radiation coming off the computer screen you are reading right now, than in any DU round. DU ammo is used by all modern militarys in tank and anti-armor munitions. So there is another dumbass lie you have been telling, dashed to pieces.


Sure it's perfectly safe, until the ammunition is fired, or "cooked off" in fires or explosions. The particles given off in an almost aerosol effect when taken into the body via metal fragments or in through the lungs via dust-like particles, this "safe" depleted uranium may pose a long-term health hazard.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone

Originally posted by Toelint
As for whether or not Bush&Co knew about 9/11, I'd like to ask...were any of the aforementioned people booked on any flights that crashed on that day? Is it considered odd by anyone else that the only people "warned" not to fly just happen to be the biggest Lib on the West Coast, a Muslim novelist, and the biggest anti-american Jew in Israel?


The only people? What about Ashcroft?

www.cbsnews.com...

San Fransisco Mayor Willie Brown also cancelled a flight that day, but its alleged he was warned not to fly by Condolleezza Rice herself. What do you imagine would happen if he was forced to testify in a court of law about why he cancelled his flight? Of course he may not mention Rice's warning, but this is all speculation anyway.

Does this information not count? Have you read that information before? Or are you choosing to ignore it?


Okay, point #1: Ashcroft isn't mentioned in Jakomo's original list of forewarned people.

Point #2: You're asking me to believe a CBS web site. 'nuff said.

Point #3: Former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown IS mentioned in the list. Who do you think I was talking about when I said, "The biggest Lib on the West Coast"??



[edit on 13-6-2005 by Toelint]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Oh I had to come back and add that the dateline on that CBS story you linked me to, is JULY 26th 2001.Why isn't THAT considered proof Bush&Co DID NOT KNOW planes would be hijacked on September 11th, almost six weeks later? By the way, it turns out that Ashcroft has been leasing jets for his vacations for sometime.

As for Willie Brown's warning not to fly on 9/11, all I can say is, every search I did linked back to Brasscheck.com which has it's story dated in August of 2003. Excuse me, but TWO YEARS LATER, Willie Brown comes out and says, "Well, Rice told me not to fly on that day!" *sigh* Give me a break!

If the Democrats had their way, they'd have you convinced that George Bush HIMSELF piloted those planes (both of them) into the towers!

JUST STOP ALREADY!

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Toelint]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Army:

BTW, it's DEPLETED URANIUM, not "irridated" (whatever that means). Depleted means that the metal has been rendered safe. There is more radiation coming off the computer screen you are reading right now, than in any DU round. DU ammo is used by all modern militarys in tank and anti-armor munitions. So there is another dumbass lie you have been telling, dashed to pieces.


Really? Look up what DEPLETED means. It doesn't mean "rendered safe". Either you're a liar or just misinformed.

www.thepowerhour.com...


More than 500 tons of DU munitions have been dispensed in Afghanistan. Professor Yagasaki calculated that 800 tons of DU is the atomicity equivalent to 83,000 Nagasaki bombs in a paper presented at the World Uranium Weapons Conference in Hamburg in October 2003 ( 5 months ago ). The amount of DU used in Iraq in 2003 is equivalent to nearly 250,000 Nagasaki bombs ( Busby and Leuren Moret have calculated that 1900 tons of DU is equivalent to 60 TBq of Alfa and Beta particulate activity).

We need not ennumerate the DU munition types used in Iraq 199, Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan 2001-04 and Iraq 2003. They have been dispensed by all air / ground and sea systems on innocent civilians. DU burns intensely and is very hard. It releases Uranium Oxide. The aerosol contains particles of 0.5-5 microns in size, once they are in the air or dust they are inhaled or ingested, including from contaminated soil. Once in the lungs one such particle is equivalent to having one XRay per hour, for life. Because it is impossible to remove, the victim is gradually irradiated. Still births, birth defects, leukemia, damaged central nervous systems and other cancers have been common in children born since 1991. Child leukemia has risen 600 % in areas of Iraq as reported by the Netherland Visie Foundation. Beyond just the health
consequences, DU munitions are in fact, weapons of Silent Mass Destruction in so far as the consequences of their usage are vast, indiscriminate and violate all Human Rights Conventions .



Dispute the sources, don't dispute the science.

jako



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Great, another link to another anti-US, anti-GW, and anti-western world website. It's all the USA and Great Britains fault for all the ills of the world, right?

Link me a CREDIBLE site that proves DU is so radioactive as to cause cancer with but one atom emitted. Link me a site that shows actual test results in laboratory conditions, that gives names and accredited studies. Or just keep posting your stupid, extremely biased links that only help to shoot your own foot.

Your "proof" sucks, your arguments are childish, your reasoning is outlandish, and you are just wrong about President Bush.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Army:

Link me a CREDIBLE site that proves DU is so radioactive as to cause cancer with but one atom emitted. Link me a site that shows actual test results in laboratory conditions, that gives names and accredited studies. Or just keep posting your stupid, extremely biased links that only help to shoot your own foot.


Funny, you have yet to post a link at all, the only stupid, extremely biased aspects of your own positions are your own stupid, extremely biased (and may I add ignorant to that list) OPINIONS.

Here's your credible link. Of course, I am not going to be surprised when you skim over them and then start yelling things like "THE SCIENTISTS HATE OUR FREEDOMS! THEY WANT TO HURT AMERICA! "

Is the Nuclear Policy Institute too full of Nazis or something for you?

www.nuclearpolicy.org...



Research

The Department of Veterans Affairs has conducted the Depleted Uranium Follow-Up Program since 1993 to study thehealth effects of exposure to depleted uranium. This program has been repeatedly cited by the Pentagon as proof that there are no significant health effects from depleted uranium exposure, and in a recent March 2003 press briefing, claimed that doctors had found no medical effects in the studied veterans.138However, the program has come under significant criticism. One key criticism is a public misrepresentation of the results: at the aforementioned briefing, for example, Dr. Michael Kilpatrick stated, “There has been no cancer of bone or lungs, where you would expect them -- to see that. We have seen no leukemias.”139Dr. Kilpatrick neglected to mention, however, that at least one veteran in the study developed lymphoma.140Such omissions significantly call into question any conclusions drawn from Pentagon accounts. Another key criticism of the study is the very small size of the population, which the Veterans Administration itself pointed out, calling it “highly unlikely that definitive conclusions concerning cancer induction will be obtained from the study.”


...


Exposure in Brief

Exposure to depleted uranium may be chemical or radiological, entering the body through internal or external routes. The health affects depend on the quantity, degree of exposure, and location of embedded fragments. The chemical effects are most harmful when inhaled, ingested or embedded in the skin. When ingested, up to 90% is expelled bythe kidney into the urine. However, the remaining DU may stay in the kidneys and skeleton and may disperse to soft tissue such as liver, lung fat, and muscle over an extended period of time.119Depleted uranium is primarily an alpha emitter that upon decay emits beta and gamma radiation, which is able to damage human tissue.120Research completed only in the past decade points to the impact of alpha particles on cell biology.



I highly suggest you read the link.

But, yeah, whatever.

jako



[edit on 14-6-2005 by Jakomo]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Here is a link that is pretty objectional. en.wikipedia.org...

It says there is radiation in DU, although it doesn't say how much. I would like to see ratings on it. I bet a sunburn will give you more radiation though.

It looks like it acts more like lead.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Lung cancer risks associated with low level alpha particle damage have been established through epidemiological studies on radon. The "bystander effect" explains the risks. Since studies specifically on lung cancer and DU are not available, radon is again the best comparison.


Read that again...no studies on lung cancer and DU, yet they try to confirm a link by using the completely different isotope in Radon GAS. This is comparing apples and moon rocks....and totally inconclusive. Not to mention laughable. The "bystander effect" is an admitted "notion".


The latency period for lung cancer following exposure is 20 years.

No proof shown, quoted, linked, or accredited. Pure conjecture.


According to Dr. Brenner, there is quantifiable lung cancer risks associated with DU especially if the person is inside a vehicle struck by a DU penetrator.


WOW! Lung cancer risk after an APFSDS projo completely shreds and incinerates everything inside the vehicle! Now that's what I call killing above and beyond the call! Maybe in 20 years they will dig up the small carton of remains to see if any cancer has formed. That Dr. Brenner shore is a smart man, ain't he Cletus?


Although not as quantifiable, there are also lymphocytic leukemia risks (latency
period of only three years); other cancers are highly speculative.


Notions, inconclusions, no studies commited, possibilities, perhaps, unsubstantiated risks, speculations....and not one bit of solid proof, other than DU is used in many commercial, medical, and military applications in complete safety.

Your links continue to amuse me, and I am sure others, in their/your blatant hateful effort to discount this Presidency.

You wanted proof from me? Heck, just go to any of your own links and try to discover their non-biased efforts in actual, scientific, and heavily researched studies.....'cuz it ain't happened yet. All the proof I need, is the lies and bull# you tout.


I'm done with this thread...see y'all later!



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Funny, you have yet to post a link at all, the only stupid, extremely biased aspects of your own positions are your own stupid, extremely biased (and may I add ignorant to that list) OPINIONS.



Doesn't matter Jacko, he was there he did the work, did you, so he doesn't need links, like you do ( because you weren't there, you need Internet links to questionable sources to verify your claims )...

Poster Army was there, and his opinions IMHO can be considered as facts, were any of the people in YOUR links there, or were YOU ?

And besids can you verify that your links are TRUE ?

They could be made up, as we all know Internet stories can be made up...

Sigh...I really wander about you Canadians up there, you really belive anything you see on the Internet don't ya...







[edit on 15-6-2005 by Jedi_Master]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Link from the Sunday Herald:

www.sundayherald.com...



WHO ‘suppressed’ scientific study into depleted uranium cancer fears in Iraq

Radiation experts warn in unpublished report that DU weapons used by Allies in Gulf war pose long-term health risk
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor

An expert report warning that the long-term health of Iraq’s civilian population would be endangered by British and US depleted uranium (DU) weapons has been kept secret.
The study by three leading radiation scientists cautioned that children and adults could contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is radioactive and chemically toxic. But it was blocked from publication by the World Health Organisation (WHO)......snip.....

Baverstock also believes that if the study had been published when it was completed in 2001, there would have been more pressure on the US and UK to limit their use of DU weapons in last year’s war, and to clean up afterwards.....snip

“There is increasing scientific evidence the radio activity and the chemical toxicity of DU could cause more damage to human cells than is assumed.”

Baverstock was the WHO’s top expert on radiation and health for 11 years until he retired in May last year.



I suppose these links aren't good enough either.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master


Sigh...I really wander about you Canadians up there, you really belive anything you see on the Internet don't ya...




Raising the implausibility quotient bar by your own standards:

what evidence have you, in reality, that "Poster Army" has been to Iraq, except a handful of posts at a conspiracy website?

In my opinion you have not the basis to believe nor disbelieve.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
howmuchisthedoggy...

No...IMHO any links to the Internet anymore are not...

Because they have there own bias, they have their own agenda...

So called "facts" can be altered on the Internet to reflect an agenda...

Do you see what I'm saying here...or am I wasting my time with you ?



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
MA...You're funny
...

I always laugh at your comments...
...

You are funny indeed...

Thanks for the laugh...and for making my day
...

Question...how do you know he is not ???





posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
In my previous post, I said I do not either know or not know. I do not have the basis for that. But you seem to have the insider knowledge to avoid looking too assumptive. Or not.




posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
No...IMHO any links to the Internet anymore are not...
Because they have there own bias, they have their own agenda...
So called "facts" can be altered on the Internet to reflect an agenda...

Do you see what I'm saying here...or am I wasting my time with you ?


Not wasting your time at all. I agree with you, internet links are largely unreliable. Any mug with a computer and a blog can post op/ed now and people will read it and take it as gospel truth.

The days of editors and source checking are coming to an end perhaps. My own experience is based on the Tokaimura nuclear accident in Japan. I lived not so far away from what was a potential nuclear disaster at the time.

The Japanese news wasn't reporting anything about it and the BBC world service was screaming Chernobhyl. So what would you do in that situation? I could either trust one source or jump in my car and drive north as fast as I could to escape the radiation.

Luckily nothing bad happened, I don't glow in the dark. But it gave a healthy disrespect for the media. In a life or death situation who can you trust?



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
howmuchisthedoggy...

I'm glad you see it too...I really am...

Good day to you...



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
lets just say bush sucks a turd, and the end of the world is coming, and is most certainly his fault, and leave it at that.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Not being a bu#e or condoning dubya's actions, but I just want to address a couple of your points.




3) The decision by Bush to dig up dirt on UN diplomats when the General Assembly was considering his ill-fated war resolution


I believe they call this politics! It's dirty, but it seems to be the way they play ball. Hardly an impeachable offence. If it was every politician known to man would be out on their ears!!!



You are missing something BIG! Just cuz everyone does it doesnt mean its right! Its about doing dirt and not getting caught. Or playing it down. Like when Bush Sr. said "Read my lips, no new taxes!". Then he raised taxes. Then TV kept replaying his bold, blatant, Republican, LIE over and over and over. No chance for Bush Sr to get away with it, or play it down.

Its not "called politics". Its called "getting away with it IF YOU CAN". Every politician tries to get away with whatever dirty stuff they do. Majority do get away with it. How come some dont get away with it? Cuz the public stands up and screams outloud "Hell no this isnt 'politics'! This is dirty! This is BAD! We want you to suffer the consequences!"

If the public acts like you, takes your view, then the politicians will get away with it. In this case Bush, and the Republicans. (and on a much higher level, the Skull and Bones secret society)



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Army
Your links go to another BS, absolutely no proof, conspiracy site.

Ummm... that site also links to other sites, in mainstream media. Like the NY Times, Village Voice. They are well known newspapers.

So far YOU have NOT posted a single piece of proof, evidence, source, to back up ANYTHING you say. Nothing from any newspaper, magazine, book, speech, nada, zilch, nothing.



Originally posted by Army.
Your alledged pictures of chemical warfare burns, are nothing more than normal combat injuries sustained in conventional explosives. The alledged chemical weapons used, were nothing more than regular WP grenades, fired from armored vehicles to make smoke for concealment of movement, and WP artillery rounds called in for the same reason (white phosphorous is not illegal in warfare).


Ummm... YOU yourself just nullified what you posted! LOL! I got ya to admit White phosphorous is being used. (WP is slang for "willie peter" a synonym for White Phosphorus) Oh you say its ok cuz it's not illegal? OMG! LOL! Its a chemeical weapon. Its chemical warfare! Its ok cuz the USA says its legal to use it? LOLOL!

White Phosphorus in use

The dangers of White Phosphorus

White Phosphorus is a chemical. When its used in war, its being used as a chemical weapon. You admit WP is being used. You admit those pics are pics of WP burns. WP is a chemical. Hey, chemical war fare my man!





Originally posted by Army.
Where is your actual, unrefuteable proof? Your half-baked theory's, and links to BS sites only shows that you are simply ignorant of the real world,

Read the above reply. You and I both agree WP is being used. We both agree its a chemical. Well... you say since the USA says its legal, then its suddently no longer a chemical, but a "conventional" weapon. The proof is my sources I linked to. The proof is also you in your own words, in which you admit WP is being used.

I like how you say "the alleged chemical weapons" and in the same sentance talk about WP actually being used. Phosphorus is a chemical LOL!


Originally posted by Army.
and must lash out at those who are doing the living for you.


Slooow down partner. I dont have anything against anyone. I dont come here to lash out at anyone. I come here simply to trade information with everyone else. To share information with others to help them cut through the bs they've been taught. And to get information from others to help me cut through the bs Ive been taught.

If someone shows me, tells me something, and they back it up with sources, proof, articles, or point me in the direction of where the proof, sources, are at, then I thank them, and change my view. I do the same to others here helping them change their views.



Originally posted by Army.
No # there are hot areas in various locations in Iraq, and I was in many of them.


Exactly! Now you are starting to see the light! Even though you are there. You are NOT THERE. After you leave an area, you don't know what happens there later on. No matter where you are right now, you don't know whats going on elsewhere at the same moment. Even where you are right now, you don't know everything thats going on - cuz the military follows a "need to know" code of information. A private doesnt know all the orders, and information, given and privy to a Sargent, for example.

You work for the same military that has a history of using chemical weapons, doing experiments on its OWN soldiers, and then denying it!



Originally posted by Army.
But you are talking of Fallujah in November of 2004, you are talking of chemical attacks on innocents by the US military,


Yes? And? So? Doesn't matter where the weapons are used LOL! Or who used on LOL! I'm talking about chemical weapons period. Used in Iraq period. No matter if it affects the enemy, US forces, or anyone else.


Originally posted by Army.
you are talking of some mass cover-up that even the totally independant reporters that were with us somehow missed. You are talking out of your ass.


Again.... *sigh*.... the military you work for has a history of using chemical weapons, as well as experimenting on its OWN - and denying it.
Right now its not really a mass coverup. The info is known. But Bush and company are getting away with it cuz too many of the public are 1 level above being zombies.
And there are no independant reporters LOL! The slang term is "planted reporters" or "embeded reporters". The military tells them where they can look, what they can take pictures of. Where they cant' look, what they can't take pictures of. And yep, the US forces do so on purpose attack, and execute reporters who try to be independant:

One of most well known cases of US forces targeting reporters


“Those are inadequate explanations,” said former C.I.A. anti-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistrano, in an interview with Corriere della Sera. “Even supposing the soldiers were not informed about the approaching vehicle, why did they fire at the engine block, that is to say at passenger level, and not at the tires? How is it possible that on the road dubbed ‘the highway of death’ there aren’t any signs in Arabic and English telling vehicles to slow down? And how can you believe that a man with Calipari’s experience would not have slowed down?”

Sgrena and one of two surviving secret service agents (the other is still in critical condition at the American military hospital in Baghdad) denied the Pentagon’s version, according to Corriere della Sera. “It wasn’t a checkpoint, but a patrol that fired shortly after having shone a light on us,” they reportedly told Italian state prosecutors from their beds at Clio military hospital. “We don’t know from which direction came the weapons fire, and we had not encountered a checkpoint before. Our car was absolutely not traveling at an elevated speed and there was no reason that they should’ve opened fire.”



Reporters angrey at being executed by US forces

More reporters executed by US forces



07.04.2003 - Julio Anguita Parrado, El Mundo

04.04.2003 - Michael Kelly, Washington Post

02.04.2003 - Kaveh Golestan, BBC

23.03.2003 - Terry Lloyd, ITV News

22.03.2003 - Paul Moran, Australian Broadcasting Corporation


BBC Cameraman executed by US forces

Terry Lloyd executed by US forces

(also check out the guy 6th down on the list. Kamaran Abd al-Razaq Muhammad.)


(also check out further down the list Tariq Ayoub)


Tariq's killing demonstrates that the U.S. military preferred that Tariq and journalists like him ride on the back of an American tank, follow the troops around, eat and drink with them, and write in line with U.S. military desires

In other words, embeded reporting ONLY. Reporting, and reporters directly under the control of US forces.

(and the 2 guys under his name also.......)

where many journalists were known by the US to be staying


And everyone's favorite execution of a reporter by US forces:
Mazin Dana


US troops approached the team on Sunday while they were filming and opened without warning fire-hitting Mazen in the chest. Video footage captured by Mazen minutes before his death records the incident and shows that there were no disturbances in the area at that time. He bled to death on the scene.


More stories, and links to more info about reporters executed by US forces







Originally posted by Army.
With all these chemicals, at the mercy of the wind. And all these chemicals liberally spread upon the wounded like so much butter...why the hell didn't I get any on me? I was in many areas of Fallujah as we pushed to the north. I was at the hospital for 4 days. I even took a quick airlift ride back to Anaconda to get the mail. Gee golly Wally, not once did I see anyone with chem burns, nobody was sick from inhalation of chems, never was there anyone saying,"hey, how about that mustard gas in the alley over there?"


Mustard Gas isnt the ONLY chemical weapon LOL!
And just cuz you havent suffered from White Phosphorus, or Uranimum ammunition, doesnt mean its not being used, or that others haven't suffered from it.
Just like in the past when the military used chemical weapons, and even experimented on its OWN, no one knew about it, or saw it. But it happened.


Originally posted by Army.
Well, it didn't happen chum. No matter how many BS links to BS websites or blogs you want to base your silliness off of.


Ummm.... I got you to admit White Phosphorus, and Uranium, ARE being used. I made an attempt to post my links, sources, proof. You have not.


Originally posted by Army.
BTW, it's DEPLETED URANIUM, not "irridated" (whatever that means). Depleted means that the metal has been rendered safe. There is more radiation coming off the computer screen you are reading right now, than in any DU round. DU ammo is used by all modern militarys in tank and anti-armor munitions. So there is another dumbass lie you have been telling, dashed to pieces.


Its true theres radiation coming out of my computer. But its not in direct contact with my blood, or mucus membranes (nose, mouth, ears, lungs.) Its also controlled - I can get up and walk away as soon as I start experiencing headaches, dizzyness, or ill. Its in very low dosages.

When radiation is used in ammunition, its in direct contact with the bloodstream, and mucus membranes (nose, mouth, lungs, ears). And one doesnt have any control over the dosages. Even US soldiers. If one's commanding officier says one has to stay stationed in an area that reeks of WP, or Uranium dust clouds, one cannot walk away. The enemy, targeted reporters, and innocents, get uncontrolled dosages (the more the better for em LOL!). US and coalition forces get various dosages depending on where they are, how sadistic their commanding officers are, how close to "grunt level" they are.

BTW, what RANK are you? (You don't have to tell what unit your in, or your exact location, or your name. Just what rank are you?)


Whatever you want to call it - Depleted or Irridated - Uranium, its still the same dangerous, thing. Ask yourself, WHY does the USA choose Uranium out of all the other choices for ammunition?

www.iacenter.org...


www.fas.org...

Depleted uranium results from the enriching of natural uranium for use in nuclear reactors




[edit on 16-6-2005 by OpenSecret2012]






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join