State sponsored terrorism

[QUOTE][B]Be that as it may, what was the IRA's primary source of finance throughtout its guerilla war in Northern Ireland?[/QUOTE][/B]Private US donors. As you said, you cannot hold a government responsible for the actions of its citizens. [QUOTE][B]Or the finance for the Contra's in central America?[/QUOTE][/B]That was a scandal and certain careers were ruined by it. The US does not tolerate support of terrorism, even from within itself. [QUOTE][B]Forgetting my history?[/QUOTE][/B]Actually I'm being generous. [QUOTE][B]That the division of Vietnam into north and south was implemented by the French colonial powers when they didn't like the popularity of communist supported nationalist Ho Chi Minh?[/QUOTE][/B]That's incorrect. The stalemate between French and Northern forces caused the division of the country. South Vietnam became autonomous in accordance with the Geneva Agreements, with a standing (legitimate) military and premier. Viet Cong engage in assasinations and form a guerilla force of illegal combatants in the south.And by the way, I think Vietnam was a mistake because we lost. I have no problem with US participation other than that. And by the way, Australia backed us in their usual, token way.[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-26-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Our government, like Gene, seems to feel that the human rights of Americans are the only ones that count.[/QUOTE][/B]No, I don't think that, but I think that the government exists to serve us. That means that if a government threatens us the government is mandated to topple it, regardless of what may happen to the civilians. If the government allowed the United States to be threatened it would not be doing its job.How you turn that into "human rights aren't important" I don't know, but it frankly does not surprise me given some of the things you have said. You have a strange tendency to try and make me look bad, don't you Schraf. Could it be my religious preference? [QUOTE][B]People can take revenge on us at pretty much any time now.[/QUOTE][/B]Which is why we get involved with other nations' internal affairs, even when bleeding hearts don't like it. [QUOTE][B]There are alternative fuel sources which briefly got some attention in the mid-seventies after the oil shortage, and if we lowered each passenger car's gas mileage to 35 MPG, we wouldn't need any Saudi oil.[/QUOTE][/B]Oh please. [QUOTE][B]If alternative energy esearch was funded at a fraction of the corporate handouts the oil companies get, you wouldn't have to.[/QUOTE][/B]You're speculating again. [QUOTE][B]I am also saying that there is NEVER a justification for our overturning a government which was elected by the people of another country simply because we want someone who will do what we want them to do in power in that country.[/QUOTE][/B]You may be able to decide that for yourself but you have no right for your outlook to potentially put millions of lives at risk.

[QUOTE]Moose: [B]I am currently feeling that the world would be far better off, if God (or some other party) came and wiped the White House and the Pentagon off of the face of the earth.[/QUOTE][/B]It's time Moose retract or defend his remark.[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-26-2002]

quote:

---

Private US donors. As you said, you cannot hold a government responsible for the actions of its citizens.

---

So, it is not illegal for private US citizens to provide financial support to terrorist organisations? And the IRA were fighting the government of a US ally. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

quote:

---

That was a scandal and certain careers were ruined by it. The US does not tolerate support of terrorism, even from within itself.

---

Oliver North's? Ronald Reagan's? Certainly many innocent lives were lost or ruined by the actions of the US government.

quote:

---

That's incorrect. The stalemate between French and Northern forces caused the division of the country.

---

So, why did a colonial force such as France have the right to impose its will on self-determination by the Vietnamese people? It's a strange double standard which western nations have applied historically - the right to fight for their own independence and self-determination (US war of independence, Netherlands etc) but not extending that right when it is exercised against those same western nations.

[QUOTE][B]So, it is not illegal for private US citizens to provide financial support to terrorist organisations?[/QUOTE][/B]I'm not sure. [QUOTE][B]With friends like that, who needs enemies?[/QUOTE][/B]You were the one that said that a government cannot be condemned for the actions of individuals. Are you going back on that? [QUOTE][B]Oliver North's?[/QUOTE][/B]Yes. Recently in the news it was noted that North had something to do with a Pentagon system of tracking credit cards. There was public outcry simply because he was involved. He's not a popular man, the scandal ruined his credibility.I'd also be curious if you can prove Reagan was involved. Oh yes there are suspicions but I want to see *Proof*. Or you should admit that it is only hearsay. [QUOTE][B]Certainly many innocent lives were lost or ruined by the actions of the US government.[/QUOTE][/B]Can you prove that any one of those people would have had better lives without the contra incident? Or are you just speculating? How do you claim to know how history would have turned out if things had been different?Also, are you insisting that the government was responsible for it, when the government itself cracked down on the individuals responsible? Individuals were responsible for that, not the government itself, and the system corrected itself. [QUOTE][B]So, why did a colonial force such as France have the right to impose its will on self-determination by the Vietnamese people? [/QUOTE][/B]The Geneva Agreement was between France and the North, it was not what France just decided to do. How you could possibly overlook that puzzles me because most people realize that it takes more than one side to comply in order to stop a war.Secondly, it was the will of South Vietnam to preserve its independance from the North. Were it not so the government which you claimed France just decided to "impose" (to use your word) on the Vietnamese people would have surrendered. Why did they hold out until the fall of Saigon? And why was the South Vietnamese army willing to try to fight even after Nixon announced his plans to withdraw (Vietnamization)?Finally, if America is evil for fighting in Vietnam, why did Australia lend assistance? Is your country not just as wrong? [QUOTE][B]It's a strange double standard which western nations have applied historically - the right to fight for their own independence and self-determination but not extending that right when it is exercised against those same western nations[/QUOTE][/B]But South Vietnam was fighting for its independance and we backed them. There is no double standard. *Where* its independance came from is irrelevant, it was the will of the state to remain independant from the North.The North simply did not recognize the South as a legitimate state, just like Saddam does not recognize Kuwait as an autonomous state. Just as we had the moral right to defend Kuwait we had the moral right to defend South Vietnam. The only problem is that Vietnam had nothing we needed and we lost that war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
I don't think I agree that we would be hated no matter what just because we are successful.

​

I think we are hated not because of our success, but because we blatantly disregard people in certain less-successful lands of the world so we can (we think at the time) continue to succeed.

---

So the billions we forgive in loans, give out in aide, provide relief for, the food we give all that doesn't count? At what point do it become enough? When do we give enough away to make the people who hate us like us?

quote:

---

Our government, like Gene, seems to feel that the human rights of Americans are the only ones that count. Back when the only way to get across the ocean was by ship, and we didn't have automatic weapons or those capable of mass-destruction, we could afford the arrogant luxury of feeling like we were more important, more valuable, or simply better than other people simply because we were American.

​

The world is now a much smaller place, so to speak, and this continued attitude is not going to work. People can take revenge on us at pretty much any time now.

---

Actually I agree that OUR human rights ARE more important. And since we DO provide more in aide than every other country combined I am not sure I can agree with that statement.

quote:

---

There are alternative fuel sources which briefly got some attention in the mid-seventies after the oil shortage, and if we lowered each passenger car's gas mileage to 35 MPG, we wouldn't need any Saudi oil.

---

Actually we could also tap the Alaska oil, or make deals with Russia. But that would affect the US based companies that control Saudi Oil so that probably won't happen any time soon.

quote:

---

If alternative energy esearch was funded at a fraction of the corporate handouts the oil companies get, you wouldn't have to.

---

Blame the auto industry then, they are the largest lobbiests for keeping fossil fuels. And those would be Japanese, German, AND US companies.

quote:

---

I'm not saying that we shouldn't protect our interests. I am saying that the government's interests are often not long-term and have often served to make things worse in the future.

---

You can blame that on term limits and partisionship. How long term can you expect someone to look when they first have to get things done that will get them re-elected and when members of the other party will try to be a major obstacle. That is how the government works, now unless you propose a total reworking of the democratic process I can see no real way for things to change that much.As to them not hating us in general..In 1993 when offered a Palistinian state Arafat refused. He WANT'S the conflict, he and his militants don't want peacefull coexistance, they want the extermination of jews and all people not extreme muslim. The Nurse was killed for being non-muslim even thought she was HELPING muslims.. They hate us because we are successful, are prosperous and they are not. They hate us because we have choices and they do not. What we need is moderate muslim leaders to stand up and condemn militant muslim actions, but they won't because they are scared.[This message has been edited by RedVento, 11-27-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Actually I agree that OUR human rights ARE more important.[/QUOTE][/B]Every nation exists, first and foremost, to protect the rights of its constituents FIRST. THEN, when it's own self-interest is attended to, can it play International Human Rights Police.To the US government, American human rights *are* more important than Cambodian human rights. To the government of Cambodia, Cambodian human rights are more important than American human rights.And as I have said, the US government exists to maintain infrastructure and to keep enemy paratroopers out of my backyard. Everything else it does is secondary. And I think we are very generous in our foreign aid.

Surely much of what you say is true and valid - about the effects of corporate influence and the state of campaigns and partisan politics. But these are explanations, not justifications.It's also true that the U.S. does good in the world as well as bad. Does this somehow justify the bad? I mean, Enron supported charity, does that make it a "good" company?

quote:

---

Actually I agree that OUR human rights ARE more important.

---

You shift the wording from Schrafinator. But I think you're still wrong. It is, indeed, completely incompatible with any definition of "human" rights that I would agree with. Here's a statement I would agree with: The U.S. Government is more responsible for the human rights of its citizens than of non-citizens. But this does not justify actively trampling on the human rights of others. Do you deny we've done that?

quote:

---

I would like to see the US defend human rights more and dictatorships less. BUT her point that it would make people like us more is senseless. The reason we are hated around the world has little or nothing to do with human rights. We are hated because we are strong, and because we occasionally use our military to defend our interests.

---

Are you honestly trying to say that our support (and even installation) of corrupt and oppressive regimes is irrelevant to how the rest of the word views us?Much of what you say is true, but is but a small fraction of only the current world situation. And your final strawman of complete pacifist isolationism is irrelevant. No one would argue that. But how does that justify, say, aiding Pinochet? Or the Taliban (who we've known for a long, long time had bin Laden as a "guest")?

[QUOTE][B]about the effects of corporate influence and the state of campaigns and partisan politics. But these are explanations, not justifications.[/QUOTE][/B]Well Zhimbo, can you think of any way to fix these perceived "problems" with partisanship and campaigning? [QUOTE][B]You shift the wording from Schrafinator.[/QUOTE][/B]I don't think so. She's the one claiming that I "don't care about human rights".I resent that. [QUOTE][B]But this does not justify actively trampling on the human rights of others.[/QUOTE][/B]We aren't trampling human rights. Some of our pawns have trampled human rights, usually *after* the CIA has installed them. And once the trampling begins what do you do? Install another one, that's just as bad? Plus, consider what was happening in these countries where we installed new governments. In the case of Iran it was to prevent Soviet infiltration. Look at what has happened in the Balkans and in East Europe and in Afghanistan. Do you think those people would have better human rights had Iran become a Soviet state?I challenge you to Prove that human rights would be better there had history been different. You know as well as I that we are only speculating anyway. You also lack the information our operatives would have had when the decision was made. For all you know another coup was imminent.Also, I'm afraid that American security *does* take precedent over the government types of other nations.[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-27-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:Every nation exists, first and foremost, to protect the rights of its constituents FIRST. THEN, when it's own self-interest is attended to, can it play International Human Rights Police.To the US government, American human rights *are* more important than Cambodian human rights. To the government of Cambodia, Cambodian human rights are more important than American human rights.And as I have said, the US government exists to maintain infrastructure and to keep enemy paratroopers out of my backyard. Everything else it does is secondary. And I think we are very generous in our foreign aid. [/B][/QUOTE]I agree 110%I have found that many people have a very ideolized view of how things should be. We should protect everyone, we should go out of our way to make sure no one gets there feelings hurt, make sure every nation has the same opportunities as we do.That is all BS. The US Government is here to protect us, promote our interests and make sure we prosper. If during the process we manage to help some neihbors than goody, if not oh well. My interests are with my, and my countries prosperity. Nations or entities that activly seek out to undermine that prosperity and security have to be dealt with, and unfortunatly most times that involves doing things that will not be popular with the politically correct left wing.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:Every nation exists, first and foremost, to protect the rights of its constituents FIRST. THEN, when it's own self-interest is attended to, can it play International Human Rights Police.To the US government, American human rights *are* more important than Cambodian human rights. To the government of Cambodia, Cambodian human rights are more important than American human rights.And as I have said, the US government exists to maintain infrastructure and to keep enemy paratroopers out of my backyard. Everything else it does is secondary. And I think we are very generous in our foreign aid. [/B][/QUOTE]I agree 110%I have found that many people have a very ideolized view of how things should be. We should protect everyone, we should go out of our way to make sure no one gets there feelings hurt, make sure every nation has the same opportunities as we do.That is all BS. The US Government is here to protect us, promote our interests and make sure we prosper. If during the process we manage to help some neihbors than goody, if not oh well. My interests are with my, and my countries prosperity. Nations or entities that activly seek out to undermine that prosperity and security have to be dealt with, and unfortunatly most times that involves doing things that will not be popular with the politically correct left wing.[/B][/QUOTE]I have to side with gene and redvento here too. Our government exists to protect us. I'd like to see the least possible collateral damage and the most possible peace, prosperity, and mutual cooperation but the bottom line is that the governments exist because people can't play nice for any length of time. If we could there would be no need for governments are all. This later, is fact, is the basic idea behind communism and we've seen how well that works.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

Moose: I am currently feeling that the world would be far better off, if God (or some other party) came and wiped the White House and the Pentagon off of the face of the earth.

---

​

It's time Moose retract or defend his remark.

---

Message 3 was really an extension of my topic concerning the death of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone. Since I last posted at that topic, I have discovered that what I originally thought was true, and then later retracted, was indeed true after all. That is, in the Senate vote on the resolution to support President Bush's (et all) plans for a possible Iraq invasion, the vote was 99 to 1 in support of Bush. Wellstone was the 1. He voted his conscience, knowing that it may well cost him the upcoming election.Ralph Nader, during the the times leading up to the elections of 2000, said something to the effect, that there is no significant difference between the nature of the Republican party and the Democratic party. In large, he was correct. But Paul Wellstone was an exception to that rule. Regardless of if you agreed with the Wellstone liberal positions, I think it important that decenting from the mainstream voices such as his, are needed in the government.Now for the main point:

quote:

---

Moose: I am currently feeling that the world would be far better off, if God (or some other party) came and wiped the White House and the Pentagon off of the face of the earth.

---

I guess I was feeling extra cranky when I created that message. As I now recall, I had added the "(or some other party)" part as somewhat of an afterthought.It certainly got the discussion going, however, there were a number of alternative things I could have done, to soften that statement:1) I could have had it as "(or some other party?????)".
2) I could have omitted the "(or some other party)", and left any possible action purely in God's hands.
3) I could have confined the statement to just the Pentagon and left possible action up to God.
4) I could have proposed that the people of the buildings be evaquated before the urban renewal.
5) Or perhaps I should have just suggested that God give the decision makers migrane headaches, when they contemplate initiating destruction actions.But does it really matter? I'm not anyone in any position of power.I stand behind the statement, as being a powerful point to trigger discussion of extremely significan issues.Now, I will focus on Iraq.What I see as being a possibility, is that the U.S. is about to start an ugly war (as if there's such a thing as a "cute war"). We are going to spend vast amounts of money and resources, kill lots of people and cause other destruction, and the end result will mainly be that a lot of people hate the U.S. even more.I now refer you to the thoughts of Noam Chomsky -Interview With Noam Chomsky about U.S. Warplans
by Noam Chomsky and Michael Albert
August 29, 2002
http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&Item...This was published in the print version of the October 2002 issue of Z Magazine, under the title of "Will the U.S. Attack Iraq?"Also, here is something I just received from a friend, by e-mail:

quote:

---

Helen Caldicott, October 6, 2002
(Editorial published in the Baltimore Sun)

​

NEW YORK-As the Bush administration prepares to make war on the Iraqi people-for it is the civilian population of that country and not Saddam Hussein who will bear the brunt of the hostilities -- it is important that we recall the medical consequences of the last
Persian Gulf war. It was, in effect, a nuclear war.

​

By the end of that 1991 conflict, the United States left between 300 and 800 tons of depleted uranium-238 in anti-tank shells and other munitions on the battlefields of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

​

The term "depleted" refers to the removal of the fissionable element uranium-235 through a process that ironically is called "enrichment." What remains, uranium-238, is 1.7 times more dense than lead. When incorporated into an anti-tank shell and fired, it achieves enormous momentum, cutting through tank armor like a hot knife through butter.

​

What other properties does uranium-238 possess? First, it is pyrophoric. When it hits a tank , it bursts into flames, producing aerosolized particles less than 5 microns in diameter, making them easy to inhale into the terminal air passages of the lung.

​

Second, it is a potent radioactive carcinogen, emitting a relatively heavy alpha particle composed of two protons and two neutrons. Once inside the body-either in the lung if it has been inhaled, in a wound if it penetrates flesh, or ingested since it concentrates in the
food chain and contaminates water-it can produce cancer in the lungs, bones, blood or kidneys.

​

Third, it has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, meaning the areas in which this ammunition impacted in Iraq and Kuwait will remain effectively radioactive for the rest of time.

​

Children are 10 to 20 times more sensitive to the effects of radiation than adults. My fellow pediatricians in the Iraqi city of Basra, for example, report an increase of six to 12 times in the incidence of childhood leukemia and cancer. Yet because of the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United States and the United Nations, they have no access to antibiotics,chemotherapeutic drugs or effective radiation machines to treat their patients.

​

The incidence of congenital malformations has doubled in the exposed populations in Iraq where these weapons were used. Among them are babies being born with only one eye and with an encephaly -- the absence of a brain.

​

However, the medical consequences of the use of uranium-238 almost certainly did not affect only Iraqis. Some American veterans exposed to it are reported, by at least one medical researcher, to be excreting uranium in their urine a decade later. Other reports
indicate it is being excreted in their semen.

​

That nearly one-third of the American tanks used in Desert Storm were armed with munitions made with uranium-238 is another story, for their crews were exposed to whole body gamma radiation. What might be the long-term consequences of such
exposure has not, apparently, been studied.

​

Would these effects have surprised U.S. authorities? No, for incredible as it may seem, the American military's own studies prior to Desert Storm warned that aerosol uranium exposure under battlefield conditions could lead to cancers of the lung and bone, kidney damage, non-malignant lung disease, neurocognitive disorders, chromosomal damage and birth defects.

​

Do President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld understand the medical consequences of the 1991 war and the likely health effects of the next one they are planning? If they don't, their ignorance is breathtaking. Even more incredible, though, and possibly more likely, is that they do understand but
don't care.

​

Helen Caldicott, MD, founder and president of the Nuclear Policy
Research Institute, has devoted 25 years to an international
campaign to educate the public about the medical hazards of the
nuclear age. Her most recent book is The New Nuclear Danger:
George W. Bush's Military-Industrial Complex, (The New Press,
2002).

---

There is also a more expansive article in the October 2002 Z Magazine, on (quoting Dr. Rosalie Bertell, in the article) "shooting radioactive waste at your enemy". I can't yet find an on-line version.Moose

That is, in the Senate vote on the resolution to support President Bush's (et all) plans for a possible Iraq invasion, the vote was 99 to 1 in support of Bush. Wellstone was the 1. He voted his conscience, knowing that it may well cost him the upcoming election.I'm sorry about your senator but I don't agree with his decision. I believe, the president believes, and the senate believes, that an invasion of Iraq is in the best interests of the people of the United States. Wellstone was a dissenter, there usually is at least one (I'm almost surprised that the vote condemning the 9/11 attacks was unanimous). That doesn't mean, as you imply, that the others were not voting their consciences. It's rather arrogant of you to assume that you (and Wellstone) are morally right and they are sold out just because they disagree with you.It certainly got the discussion going, however, there were a number of alternative things I could have done, to soften that statementThere are a lot of things you could have said that were not insensitive, and offensive. You know, people have family that work in the Pentagon. Some of them died a while back just for being there. The White House is a symbol of democracy, and people died so it would preserved. Just because you don't like the current occupant does not give you the right to strike out at the whole system of government like you did. Or to endorse terrorism, like you did. It is irrational.Complaining about a Republican sweep is one thing, but you went a step further than even that.I may not agree with Wellstone, but I didn't make a comment like, "Well I wish all the other ultraliberal senators would fly more often!"The fact is that what you said was inappropriate. Dissent is one thing. Malice is another.But does it really matter? I'm not anyone in any position of power.It does matter. One doesn't have to be an elected official to make inhuman remarks. Would you have said that to a widow, mother, brother, or son of a 9/11 Pentagon victim?We are going to spend vast amounts of money and resources, kill lots of people and cause other destruction, and the end result will mainly be that a lot of people hate the U.S. even more. Now wait a minute...Schrafinator thinks that if we advance human rights people will like us. Ousting Saddam would advance human rights, wouldn't it?Plus, I prefer destruction in Iraq to New York being leveled by an atomic bomb. What if Clinton had decided to topple the Taliban and capture Osama after the bombing of the Cole? I suggest two outcomes (1) 9/11 would possibly have been averted, and we would never know and (2) you, Paul Wellstone, and all these other "doves" would have opposed the military intervention vehemently and people would be making offensive posts like the one you started this thread with. Zmag would have had a field day. But thousands of lives would have been spared.This Iraq situation is similar. We don't know what will happen if Saddam is left alone, but have some ideas of what could happen and we have the ability to avert it. We have no choice but to attack. Unless he lets hundreds of inspectors run around his country for the rest of his time in power so that it would be absolutely impossible for him to mess with us there is no alternative but to send him packing.Now as for people not liking us, do you think we're earning brownie points with radical Islamists by making Saddam bow to UN demands? My point is this: what they think is not even a consideration, they will hate us no matter what we do, because they live for our destruction.
If we ran our foreign policy based upon appeasement we would let Saddam take Kuwait, let the Arabs finish off the Isreali Jews, and not even have embassies in the Middle East. Are any of those what you would like to see?Now, as for your primary source of information about the world, Zmag, it is nothing less than a politically motivated rag. It's the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. Zmag's site contains all sorts of pro-animal rights / anti-meat / anti-animal experimentation, anti-genetic engineering, pro-abortion, anti-Kosovo, pro-homosexuality, pro-Mbeki, pro-anarchism, and anti-corporate economics. Anything anti-conservative goes. Is this what you call unbiased journalism?In fact, Zmag is just plain stupid. I managed even to drum up some anti-NASA pages. It turns out that they were some of the ones duped about the "deadly" Cassini spacecraft.http://www.zmag.org/Bulletins/pncassp.htm
http://www.zmag.org/Bulletins/pectv.htm
http://www.zmag.org/Bulletins/pcassn.htmAs far as I'm concerned, this eliminates their credibility. Moose, I'd give a Flat Earth Society newsletter more credence.Now why don't you drop by this site and tell me if you think it's credible?http://www.newsmax.comIt's just more politically motivated "journalism", exactly like Zmag but on the opposite end of the spectrum. If I reject what I see there why should I believe your sources? If you believe Zmag, why would you reject their articles?Also, here is something I just received from a friend, by e-mailPR reference please.There is also a more expansive article in the October 2002 Z Magazine, on (quoting Dr. Rosalie Bertell, in the article) "shooting radioactive waste at your enemy". I can't yet find an on-line version.Journal cite? This is a scientific topic, after all. I think that if Gulf War vets are peeing significant quantities of uranium you should have a lot of journal references that carry a lot more weight than a professedly "radical" propagandist publication. Plus it doesn't give me any information to tell me that uranium has been detected in someone's urine. There's probably uranium in my urine. Mass spectrometry is so advanced now that people who work with lunar samples have to be careful about gold jewelry...a ring simply touching a sample would throw off the isotope ratio of that sample. Don't tell me that if you don't look hard enough you won't find something interesting anywhere you look.Plus, (and I know this post is getting long but I have a lot of bones to pick) this is nonsense about the perceived dangers of Uranium 238.
²³⁸U has a halflife of 4.5 billion years. That's not very radioactive. By the time it became an exposure hazard the Sun would be engulfing the inner planets. And even when it does decay, it's an alpha particle emitter (though some sources include gamma as well). Alpha particles, as you know, are incapable of even penetrating human skin or a piece of paper. And almost all the (few) particles generated in the ²³⁸U will be blocked by air and other atoms of ²³⁸U. As soon as it gets buried by a dune, that's the last you're likely to hear from it. The second product of the ²³⁸U decay series is Thorium 234. Thorium 234 has a halflife of 24.1 days. The (very very few) ²³⁴Th atoms will never have a chance to reach a significant concentration because they have a halflife less than a month, in which time they become Protactinium 234. Good luck finding any of those because they have a halflife of one minute. (They're very radioactive but they will be almost completely absent at any given time). The next step is ²³⁴U which you would stand a decent chance of detecting as it has a halflife of 234,000 years. Of course, there would never be much of it at all because the ²³⁸U has that 4500 million year halflife. By the time this depleted uranium ammunition generates a significant radiation hazard it would have been driven hundreds of miles into the mantle by plate tectonics. Before that it would have been used in metasomatism to form Uranium minerals, and returned to the same form it was in before we mined it.Also, I'd ask you if you would prefer that our tank-piercing rounds used some other element that was non-radioactive? How about Osmium? It's unbelievably toxic, and according to a chem prof I had, it plates out on the human cornea, turing eyes silver.I read your lengthy quote. I don't suppose that the Iraqi doctors claiming an increase in birth defects could possibly have a motive in claiming birth defects are caused by American munitions? Or that "some other party" is "encouraging" them to say such things? Further, I don't suppose the lack of health care caused (directly) by Saddam's greed and (indirectly) by our embargoes could have any sort of influence at all on the increase of birth defects? And I don't suppose there are very many peer-review cites you have to back it up?All the information you've given me is reactionary and appealing to emotion with comments about babies born without brains and war vets peeing nuclear waste. I don't see any science there.In fact I've been looking on the web for any credible source of information claiming that depleted uranium is dangerous. All the hits I've seen are invariably *.orgs and *.coms with a political motivation (or personal websites). None of them are *.gov or *.edu. That tells me something.Look, here's a classic example: Welcome gulfwarvets.com - Hostmonster.comThe article was taken from Workers World Newsletter. It discusses findings announced at a meeting organized by "National People's Campaign". Gee, do you suppose they might have an axe to grind? I also think that the above is the original source the claim that vets are urinating uranium.[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-29-2002]

Now let's check the credibility of the Nuclear Policy Reserach(sic) Institute, home of the author of your lengthy quote. Their name implies that they are open-minded, and are engaging to research the possibilities, pro and con, of nuclear power. In actuality, their website shows quite clearly that they are nucleaophobes. They have no pro-nuclear articles anywhere on their site. Instead they have articles with titles like, "Nuclear Power Causes Global Warming".I don't suppose you could find an impartial source?[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-29-2002]