Kacen said - "I find it kinda fascinating, deformities and such."


People never mean it when they say things like that on the fly. Helps if they've been brainwashed since birth to think God will congratulate them with anxious virgins in heaven if they kill the infidels they've failed to convert.

Like a long term cluster bomb, that scatters on the wind. Festering wound on the morale of the region...world. What will the safer places on earth be from wormwood poisoning? DU is not particular to political or religious dispositions, it favors impressionable ones only mothers weep for.

Originally posted by Kacen
Children who will grow up to become sexist, conservative, closed-minded, anti-homosexual Muslims; I have no sympathies, in fact I find it kinda fascinating, deformities and such.

If you find it so fascinating, perhaps you should sign up for a tour, go see a hospital in the war zone, get a first hand veiw of the children you hold no sympathy for, get a first hand view of the deformities you find so fascinating.

You could say I'm very liberal in some aspects and I know the truth about these people.

If you were liberal there would be some leeway in your opinions, but all ive read from you on this board is conservative BS wrapped in opinion.

Yes I knew about this before and I've seen the site. Nothing shocks me anymore.

Also napalmed communists =

Didnt shock me either, but it sure put into perspective some of the costs of war. Im not surprized by your comments though, such is to be expected from one with such a politcal view as yours.

As for yor napalm comment, im sure that everyone hit by napalm fires were all communists. especially those farmers in remote parts of vietnam, cambodia, and laos. Im sure the children, who have no clue about the world of politics and warfare were commies too.

[edit on 21-5-2007 by InSpiteOf]

This post is a good reason why we should never have a woman president. Women do not have a stomach for war. They let emotions rule their actions. Women cry and wish that wars would go away. Men grab a rifle and make sure that wars are won so their women can be free.

Originally posted by Kacen
Children who will grow up to become sexist, conservative, closed-minded, anti-homosexual Muslims; I have no sympathies, in fact I find it kinda fascinating, deformities and such.

And so because there is a very large chance that will happen, they deserve no life do they?

How can you say that just because of how they will be brought up determines whether they deserve to live or die? How would you feel if it were you there experiencing it, instead of one of them, ignoring the way you would be brought up? Would you sympathise with them if you were actually there? If you were one of the soldiers there, would you see this and think "good, they will just grow up to be a sexist, conservative, closed-minded, anti-homosexual Muslim"?


Back on topic, what is the need for Depleted uranium shells anyway? So they work better at killing your enemy, does that outweigh what it does to your own side?

I won't say that war is unnecessary, at times it is justified, but use of such weaponry is definitely not.

Originally posted by RWPBR

What kind of future can we offer our own children if we dont fight terrorism abroad and dont let it be fought here in your backyard ?

You are being very short sighted on this issue.

As apex pointed out, why is there a need to use DU? if your really concerned about terrorism and all that it may do to your country, should you not also be concerned about the terrorism your own government unleashes on populations abroad? Especially if those methods, be they chemical, biological, or radioactive, come back to you threw your troops? What kind of future can you offer your children if all the groundwater is contaminated with DU?

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Originally posted by RWPBR

What kind of future can we offer our own children if we dont fight terrorism abroad and dont let it be fought here in your backyard ?

You are being very short sighted on this issue.

As apex pointed out, why is there a need to use DU? if your really concerned about terrorism and all that it may do to your country, should you not also be concerned about the terrorism your own government unleashes on populations abroad? Especially if those methods, be they chemical, biological, or radioactive, come back to you threw your troops? What kind of future can you offer your children if all the groundwater is contaminated with DU?

We should use whatever it takes to get the job done with as little immediate loss of American life as possible. War requires sacrifice. The DU threat is IMHO highly over rated by anti war types who are grasping at straws.

[edit on 21-5-2007 by RWPBR]

Originally posted by RWPBR
We should use whatever it takes to get the job done with as little immediate loss of American life as possible. War requires sacrifice. The DU threat is IMHO highly over rated by anti war types who are grasping at straws.

However, tungsten can be used instead of DU, as it is mainly used to give a higher kinetic energy round, due to it's high density. I suspect the main reason behind the use of DU is that it is more common, and that after the Uranium - 235 atoms are removed, some use for the DU is needed.

However, use of it for this purpose is IMO very bad, as another of its attributes which are useful for weaponry, that of pyrophoricity (it combusts at or below ambient temperature), causes it to be spread into the atmosphere easily. It is an alpha emitter, which means that while it is not inside the body, it can do very little, as the radiation only has a range of a few centimeters and can be stopped byclothing. When it is breathed in ,it can easily cause lung cancer, and indeed the genetic damage as evidenced at the start of this thread.

Well first off you accuse and post again and again goading people to reply...

Any hack-job can make that website. I'm sorry but I do openly admit war-is-hell for any and all involved but I could do a search for birth-deformities in the United States alone and come up with a bunch of horrifying images of innocent children who did not deserve to look or died for lack of proper-health...

War is an absolute abomination. Ask any soldier who is in it. Patton said it best. "War is Hell" Those 3-words stick to me anytime I see images of combat casaulties.

As far as DU being used that is a toughy I have no answers for... Military says it is safe but there is a growing concern that does require medical evaluation that I would like to see done as well... But remember. Of the 130,000 survivors of Hiroshima only 7,000 developed cancers that could be linked to the bomb itself... So I am hanging loose on placing blame for the deformities till someone with some financial backing actually grabs samples to find out what happens with DU rounds.

well then RWPBR- I can assume you would be more than willing to pick up a gun and go fight in Iraq .You sound very anxious to kick some al Qaida butt. So go ahead and sign up.But first have you done your homework on the number of soldiers killed and mamed since the war started? Do you want that to be you?BTW I find it comical that you must reduce yourself to insulting my gender to make a point. I try my best to be politically correct with everyone, and allow each there own opinion without verbal attack against their person. The motto of ATS if you must be reminded is "DENY IGNORANCE".If you refer to my initial post on this thread, I wasn't sure if I should even post it.However it was my belief that many were not aware of what it is like over there other than the filtered 6:00 news version. I felt this had to be put out there, for people to be made aware. Are you so disconnected from the fact that these are human beings? Do you feel as if they are beneath you?I am trying to understand your justification for killing innocent children, abroad and at home.

Tyranny22 that also is horrifying to look at. It seems to be the policy of the US military to"Do as we say, not as we do."

Somebody needs to do some *serious* research on exactly where and why depleted uranium is used in weapons. It's used in APFSDS anti-armor rounds for the Abrams tank's main cannon, because it's very, very, very good at transferring kinetic energy, which makes it the tool of choice for penetrating heavy armor. It's used in some of the ammunition fired by the GAU-8 cannon on an A-10 for the same reason (and the same mission...armor busting). It's used in the armor on an Abrams tank's glacis and turret face, due to its high density.

It's *not* used in free-fall bombs (dumb or smart variety), because it would simply be added weight for no added gain. It's also not used in 5.56 or 7.62 rifle ammo (again, weight and cost go up a lot faster than the benefits).

Note that I'm not saying that the stuff isn't dangerous, particularly in particulate form...I am suggesting that it's not nearly as widespread as implied.

As for 'weapons used against civilians', I get *really* tired of hearing that crap. Has it ever crossed the minds of all and sundry that if the American military had really been interested in 'targeting civilians', we could've simply loaded up a few dozen B-52s with a mix of HE, incindiary, and cluster munitions cannisters and carpet-bombed every major population center in Iraq? It's an unfortunate truth that no matter how carefully you conduct operations, there will be collateral damage...particularly when targets of military interest are in the middle of urban areas. The fact that civilian casualties happen isn't evidence that civilians are / were being targeted. It's was true long before W.T. Sherman said it..."War is Hell". It's never been pretty, and the destructive power of modern weapons has only made it uglier. That's why the use of armed force should be a last resort. On the other hand, when it becomes necessary to use armed force, it should be used in as decisive a way as possible.

I'd also be interested in knowing how white phosphorus managed to burn skin, and leave clothing intact...was it neutron WP?

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Somebody needs to do some *serious* research on exactly where and why depleted uranium is used in weapons. It's used in APFSDS anti-armor rounds for the Abrams tank's main cannon, because it's very, very, very good at transferring kinetic energy, which makes it the tool of choice for penetrating heavy armor. It's used in some of the ammunition fired by the GAU-8 cannon on an A-10 for the same reason (and the same mission...armor busting). It's used in the armor on an Abrams tank's glacis and turret face, due to its high density.

As I pointed out, it is possible to use tungsten, as it has a higher density than DU, for this role as well. It is used, but not as much it would seem.

AccessDenied

Thank you for posting that link. I looked at earlier and I was too disturbed to reply then. As I put my own child to bed I couldn't shake it from my mind.

There is no justification for inflicting that horror on unborn children. Even if it was a legally justified war it would not be right. What have those children done to us. What is more disturbing still is the attitudes of kacen and RWPBR, its okay because they're muslims, its okay this is what happens in war.

When you have carried a child inside you for nine months, spent all that time caring for yourself the best way that you can, ensuring that you do all that you can to make your baby strong and healthy. Hours of painful labour, strengthened by the fact that it will all be worth it in the end, only to produce a monster that may not even take a breath. My heart sincerely bleeds for every one of those women and I feel shame that my country is a part of that destruction of hope. No man can tell me that that is okay, that that is a fact of life, that those women deserve that experience because of the religion that they follow. Those people in my mind lack any humanity.

We have made a bad situation worse, we need to clean up our mess as quickly and efficently as possible, and if we can't do that, then perhaps we should just leave them to fight it out amongst themselves. Would it really be any worse than this? How can we criticise anyone elses weapons and then use weapons that do this to babies? How can a nation that is pro-life condone a weapon that causes these abnormalities in unborn children?

No answers from me, but I wish more people were like you AccessDenied and would try to step in others shoes and see what the world looks like from there.

All the best

[edit on 21-5-2007 by KilgoreTrout]

I'm noticing many posts indicating that support for the war (and for the notion of war in general) is linked to an ignorance of the brutal realities entailed therein. I respect that view, and it is an opinion I once shared, but I have subsequently become convinced that many people are fully aware of and willing to accept those realities and their costs. In other words, support for the war does not make one ignorant or unaware of the realities that it precipitates anymore than opposition to it makes one ignorant of the challenges and risks in not assuming an aggressive military posture. Support or opposition for the war and acute awareness of the risks and costs of either stance are not mutually exclusive.

Support for the war is not something I can understand in the context of personal experience. I'm a different person. I oppose war in all instances, even those wars which are regarded as just and necessary by most people. My reason for this is that I do not (and for some reason, seem incapable of doing so) regard those dwelling in other regions or nations or those committed to organizations hostile to the land I happened to be born in as my adversaries or separate from me. To me, they are fellow human beings who happen to have led different lives filled with very difference experiences and perceptions, leading them to take action which, while in their mind justified, is contrary to the wellbeing of those who live in the land I happened to be born in. I do not adhere to the notions of nationality, race, ethnicity, or organizational division. For me, the only differences between people all over the world boil down to experiences and perceptions derived from their accumulation. For me, the death of a so-called enemy is just as tragic and sad as the death of an American soldier. Both are events I wish did not have to take place, and both cause me sorrow.

At the same time, I know and understand that other people have led very different lives from the life I have led, and that as such, they have very different perceptions and opinions of themselves, other people, and the world we all live in together. I understand those who support the war, and why they support it. I understand those who oppose this war, but support others. I respect their views, and believe they have a right to them and that their beliefs do not have to constitute ignorance or foolishness - although they certainly could, as could my own. None of us can experience the sum total of everything the world holds for us or know everything there is to know, so in that sense, we are all ignorant of different things and in very different ways.

My point is that showing someone who has already accepted the costs inherent in war what they have committed themselves to supporting has little chance of changing their view. There are those who hold views out of ignorance, and for those people, seeing these images might make them think twice. For that reason, sharing these images with people is a good thing, as it adds more knowledge - more information to add to our collective databanks if you will - to us all. It makes us that much less ignorant. However, we should not assume that support for the war stems from ignorance alone. There are many people who are well aware of the costs and risks of military conflict who still support this war, and wars in general. I comprehend and respect those views, even if I disagree with them, and do not think that one must be ignorant in order to have formed such an opinion.

This should not be taken to imply that the OP was making war supporters out to be ignorant. It was just a line of thought that occured to me as I read.