It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are we vulnerable to an invasion?

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Tell that to our soldiers who are sickened and dying from DU.

Tell that to their families and children.

Tell that to the people of Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

You are one ignorant Dude, to make such a claim--that "relatively small doses" of radioactivity are HARMLESS.

Wow. What presumption!

Tell that to the people who are SUFFERING TO DEATH FROM IT, Dude!

Sheesh!





posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Tell that to our soldiers who are sickened and dying from DU.

Tell that to their families and children.

Tell that to the people of Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

You are one ignorant Dude, to make such a claim--that "relatively small doses" of radioactivity are HARMLESS.


I'm not sure where you got that quote "relatively small doses", but I didnt say it. Plus, in the form of armor and projectiles, DU has saved far more American lives than it has taken. Yes, DU can be dangerous if inhaled or otherwise introduced inside the body. However, your statement comparing it to "nukes" is laughable.


Wow. What presumption!

Tell that to the people who are SUFFERING TO DEATH FROM IT, Dude!

Sheesh!



Ok, lets use Iraq as an example. We have killed at least 20,000 civilians(low estimate). Of those how many were a result of DU? 1 maybe? Even ten years from now, the amount of people sickened by DU will most likely be less than 200. Pretty small amount, certainly not comparable to "nukes"

For more info, go here...
www.gulflink.osd.mil...



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
The information I have seen about DU--from the battle surgeon in charge of medical care for the soldiers in Gulf War I and from the medical personnel viewing Iraqi civilians and the deformed children they are now bearing--

repudiates what you are saying about the "relative safety" of DU.

I guess, if you don't want to KNOW what the true and actual effects of DU are, on populations exposed to it, you're not going to know, no matter what anybody tells you.

I give up.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
The information I have seen about DU--from the battle surgeon in charge of medical care for the soldiers in Gulf War I and from the medical personnel viewing Iraqi civilians and the deformed children they are now bearing--

repudiates what you are saying about the "relative safety" of DU.

I guess, if you don't want to KNOW what the true and actual effects of DU are, on populations exposed to it, you're not going to know, no matter what anybody tells you.

I give up.


I'm not arguing whether DU is potentially dangerous, it is. My problem is that you put it into the same catagory as "nukes", which is rediculous.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Plus you seem to be ignoring the fact that the troops gain a large advantage over the enemy in battle with DU and thus a higher chance of surviving, probably way higher than if DU was completely eliminated and they were using standard ammunition.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   
The survivors have the same problem as if they were hit by nukes, nearby.

The only thing that is missing from the DU scenario is instant death and incineration.

All the other side-effects of slow radiation poisoning prevail.

And that's the worst part of the whole NUKE scene--permanent spoiling of the lands; permanent ruination of the whole DNA strand; permanent omnicide that can never be repaired [unless you think 3.5 billion years is some kind of short-term solution].

Horrifying that the US would even contemplate such a permanently harmful "solution" to any situation imaginable.

They are animals--predators without a conscience--who occupy the Pentagon and NSA.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
The survivors have the same problem as if they were hit by nukes, nearby.

The only thing that is missing from the DU scenario is instant death and incineration.

All the other side-effects of slow radiation poisoning prevail.

And that's the worst part of the whole NUKE scene--permanent spoiling of the lands; permanent ruination of the whole DNA strand; permanent omnicide that can never be repaired [unless you think 3.5 billion years is some kind of short-term solution].

Horrifying that the US would even contemplate such a permanently harmful "solution" to any situation imaginable.

They are animals--predators without a conscience--who occupy the Pentagon and NSA.


So, its ok if we kill tens of thousands of people with lead bullets, but terrible if a couple of hundred people get sick from DU ones?
Also, your "nuke" comparison is rubbish. The effects of DU are nowhere near as extreme as the effects of a close proximity nuclear explosion would be. Not only that, but the amount of people killed and sickened by even the smallest nuclear device would far outnumber the amount of people sickened by DU in past, present and future.
While you have a valid point concerning the safety of DU, your radical comparisons undermine your credibility on the subject.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   
www.rense.com...

John Kamanski must be getting protection by Almighty God HIMSELF, to still be alive and say this total Truth.

... Your comments about a "few hundred" will simply be ignored.




posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by apw100
I'm not arguing whether DU is potentially dangerous, it is. My problem is that you put it into the same catagory as "nukes", which is rediculous.

DU munitions are classified by a United Nations resolution as illegal weapons of mass destruction. Their use breaches all international laws, treaties and conventions forbidding poisoned weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.

Basically, they are nukes.

Ironically, support for our troops will extend well beyond the war in Iraq. Americans will be supporting Gulf War II veterans for years as they slowly and painfully succumb to radiation poisoning. U.S and British troops deployed to the area are the walking dead. Humans and animals, friends and foes in the fallout zone are destined to a long downhill spiral of chronic illness and disability. Kidney dysfunction, lung damage, bloody stools, extreme fatigue, joint pain, unsteady gait, memory loss and rashes and, ultimately, cancer and premature death await those exposed to DU.

When a DU shell is fired, it ignites upon impact. Uranium, plus traces of plutonium and americium, vaporize into tiny, ceramic particles of radioactive dust. Once inhaled, uranium oxides lodge in the body and emit radiation indefinitely. A single particle of DU lodged in a lymph node can devastate the entire immune system according to British radiation expert Roger Coghill.

In other studies, some sick vets were found to be expressing uranium in even their semen. Their sexual partners often complained of a burning sensation during intercourse, followed by their own debilitating illnesses.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Damned]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   
for backing up the sources, citations and judgment that I likewise expressed, that there is no excuse for permanently ruining the planet by utilizing DU and spreading radioactive dust around.

None. Zero. Nada.

Only FIENDS, DEVILS and DEMONS would do such a thing.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
There are other problems with your list including but not limitted to:

The Chinese build up in Cuba being underestimated. History seems to indicate that a buildup of enemy military forces in Cuba leads to a direct confrontation.


I agree that America has historically been aware of the strategic importance of Cuba and has been cautious. The movement of a token force to Cuba would not be seen as a direct danger, but as a threat of future movements. Increased surviellance would be a given, and I can concede that the US may attempt to board ships bound for Cuba and inspect cargo.
China would have to be far more clever in moving its forces to Cuba if they hoped to succeed. I suppose I give you the point- with the reservation that the covert movement of troops is possible with the proper preparations.



The invasion of Alaska is not a strategically significant. Alaska was never strategically important. In the late 50's and early 60's there were 12 (+/- 4) aircraft defending Alaska airspace.

The under-defense of Alaska was a strategic mistake. Land-based airpower is an extremely important factor in modern naval warfare, and airpower based in Alaska can open a sea-lane to Canada and the American North West. A somewhat similar scenario plays out in the Atlantic via Iceland in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising, and the Japanese invasion of the Aleutians in WWII, although never exploited, could have served similiar purposes, especially if they had greater military resources.
Additionally, depriving America of Alaskan oil would be highly advantageous in a long war, especially if a successful interruption of middle-east supplies could be achieved either diplomatically, or militarily.
Last but not least, the greatest chance for an unopposed or lightly opposed crossing of the Rockies is in northern Canada. Such a threat demands a response, which makes it both a viable method of attack and a viable diversion.



An Iranian invasion of Iraq ignores pre-existing Iraqi/Iranian tension. It would not just be over running a small US force. It would be invading a sovereign nation, which would have to be addressed by the UN. That would polarize the "Chinese politcal base" in the UN.

Sovereign in the eyes of whom? If an oil embargo were agreed to by OPEC as a response to unpopular American military action, nations who violated the embargo would be seen as puppets. The very presence of US troops would serve as a partial justification. Although Britain, Italy, Australia, Canada, and others may not be thrilled about the idea, many others including France and Germany would likely see it as a legitimate attack on the USA's exploitation of Iraq. That's not polarizing the base- that's just losing the approval of a few nations that never would have played ball for very long anyway.



And generally, you overlook the fact that the US had planned for a global war with the Soviet Bloc during the cold war. A china/Russia compact is "old hat".

They planned for a Euro-centric global war with the Soviet block. We are far less prepared for a Chiense-lead push from the Pacific, and we are equally ill-prepared for an invasion from the South East. A two pronged threat from these directions would strain our readiness and force us to play catchup during the early part of the war.



But to repeat what I said in my previous post. Direct military engagement of superpowers is not economically feasible.

You have my whole-hearted agreement. The scenario a hand deals with the possibilty of a war by miscalculation- which is only remotely possible. If North Korea tests us too much, if we over-react, if China overestimates the threat, and if we see ourselves as too far in to back down... you get a war.
It's a long shot, but remember that the Japanese war on America in WWII and the American provokation of Chinese enterance to Korea were both wars of miscalculation. Those fights were advantageous to the aggressors- people just misunderstood the situations they were in and made bad choices.



If your goal is to cause a major world economic crisis and the suspension of Constitutional rights in the US, there are easier ways of doing it than direct military engagement between superpowers.
[edit on 14-11-2004 by Raphael_UO]


I know. That's what Bush is here for. (just kidding).



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Seems to me Bush is doing a bang-up job working for the other side.

At least, that's what PNAC wants to have him do--over-extend our military, bankrupt the Treasury and Social Security, hand over private real estate as defaulted national debts to Europeans and Asians and create an omnicide atmosphere over over-reaction-after-over-reaction in the political arena.

Who knows. He may get his final wish and trigger an Armageddon! Whoopee-doo!

And then whose side will History judge that he worked for? Not ours!



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Seems to me Bush is doing a bang-up job working for the other side.





Check this out. It's right here, right now. No military. No nukes. All it took was a bit of distraction.



North America Plans Continental Corporate Merger
www.atsnn.com...


A tri-national task force with the full backing of the US, Canadian and Mexican governments is planning to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to include a broad range of items not defined legally as goods or services. The new integration package will incorporate common policies and laws for energy, immigration, law enforcement and security.

www.worldnetdaily.com...


.....The plan is attractive from the corporate perspective: Canada has abundant water, oil and lumber resources, and no civil rights protections; the USA has civil rights and a Constitution, but no resources; Mexico has abundant reserves of cheap labor, a reliable climate and a government prone to negotiating good terms without regard to human or democratic rights......



...so what's the 'ideal' deal? Hmm. Where's my list? Let's see - how bout we trade civil rights and the constitution for water and oil, and military oversight for the rest. That should do it.



.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Just say China did invade the US, what could the US do?

quote 'There is a difference between an attack(i.e.- Pearl Harbor, 9/11) and a full scale invasion. Yes, China could technically attempt an invasion, but it would be foolish and utter failure. The Chinese arent stupid, they know that the consequences for an an assault on the US mainland would be devastating. in what way would it be devastating?



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
This is definitely a step backward for civilization--lowest-common-denominator thinking:

"Please, God, replace our leadership with real human beings. Don't let these predatory Reptilians run our world for us."

"Amen"



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg


Trade civil rights for oil, eh?

"Please, God, replace our leadership with real human beings. Don't let these predatory Reptilians run our world for us."

"Amen"



Amen.

...but looks to me like the big thing they want from Canada is water - the US is in BIG trouble and most of our water's almost gone (and the rest is so contaminated you get cancer or heart disease just looking at a tap. :lol
.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Remember - no water means no food (crops need water to grow, animals need water to drink...).

Nothing I've read says water is on the table - BUT - virtually every industry needs LOTS of water, so it's gotta be the primo chip.


.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 11:01 PM
link   
we're wasting too much water; and conservation would be a better option.

Even people living in the desert can survive, who build a cistern.

Using the water we have wisely is better than mortgaging ourselves to a relationship just to get water.

What if Canada has a drought? It can happen anywhere.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mRHass4n
Just say China did invade the US, what could the US do?

quote 'There is a difference between an attack(i.e.- Pearl Harbor, 9/11) and a full scale invasion. Yes, China could technically attempt an invasion, but it would be foolish and utter failure. The Chinese arent stupid, they know that the consequences for an an assault on the US mainland would be devastating. in what way would it be devastating?


A) The US Navy would easily destroy any invasion fleet that China could send. The Chinese navy is simply not on the same level as the US Pacific Fleet. Any attempt at a large scale invasion would be easily crushed long before it reached the coast. Even if some troops reached the coast, our navy would make it virtually impossible for the Chinese to resupply them.

B) America and its allies would launch a massive retaliatory strike against China via air and naval operations. This would devistate China's major cities and military installations.

I'm not saying that China couldnt attack the US, I'm saying that it would be moronic for them to try to invade us. And quite frankly, it would be moronic for us to invade them. We would take massive casualties, and would almost certainly be defeated.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   
if they try to invade eachother that would be a mistake cause they would lose lots of troops and when that happens they might try to use nuclear bombs to finish the war cause they both have nuclear capabilities. and bush is gonna bring down the usa cause he is an idiot.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   
@The Vagabond

Iraq: Just bomb the oil. There would be no need for an invasion.

Pacific: It is out of the way for a Chinese lead push, unless you live on a flat map. But, in the real world, a straight line between two points doesn't go through the Pacific.

Alaska: Just bomb the oil. There is no need to invade . Air dropping troops into Canada and building your staging point there would be more efficient since you were planning on "passing through" anyway.



[edit on 16-11-2004 by Raphael_UO]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join