Bu$hCo. doesn't give a fuck about the troops

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
U.S. Soldiers Contaminated With Depleted Uranium Speak Out

Watch Video

Read transcripts
_________________________

A special investigation by Democracy Now! co-host Juan Gonzalez of the New York Daily News has found four of nine soldiers of the 442nd Military Police Company of the New York Army National Guard returning from Iraq tested positive for depleted uranium contamination. They are the first confirmed cases of inhaled depleted uranium exposure from the current Iraq conflict.

After repeatedly being denied testing for depleted uranium from Army doctors, the soldiers contacted The News who paid to have them tested as part of their investigation.

Testing for uranium isotopes in 24 hours' worth of urine samples can cost as much as $1,000 each.

In a Democracy Now! broadcast exclusive, three of the contaminated soldiers speak out.

Army officials at Fort Dix and Walter Reed Army Medical Center are now rushing to test all returning members of the 442nd. More than a dozen members are back in the U.S. but the rest of the company, mostly comprised of New York City cops, firefighters and correction officers, is not due to return from Iraq until later this month.

After learning of The News' investigation, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) blasted Pentagon officials yesterday for not properly screening soldiers returning from Iraq.

Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said she will write to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld demanding answers and soon will introduce legislation to require health screenings for all returning troops.

Depleted Uranium is considered to be the most effective anti-tank weapon ever devised. It is made from nuclear waste left over from the making nuclear weapons and fuel. The public first became aware the US military was using DU weapons during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. But it had been used as far back as the 1973 Yom Kippur war in Israel.

Amid growing controversy in Europe and Japan, the European Parliament called last year for a moratorium on its use.

rest of article, http://www.democracynow.org/static/uranium.shtml plus a lot more.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#3
Radiation in Iraq equals 250,000 Nagasaki Bombs

"Just about all American bullets, 120 mm tank shells, missiles, dumb bombs, smart bombs, 500 and 2,000 pound bombs, cruise missiles, and anything else engineered to help our side in the war of us against them has Uranium in it. Lots of Uranium."

"...Four Million Pounds of Radioactive Uranium Dust (RUD) on the ground in Iraq was a definitely "on-purpose" kind of thing. It was not "just an accident."

"The uranium cannot be removed, there is no treatment, there is no cure. The uranium will long outlast the Veterans' and the Iraqis' bodies though; for, you see, it lasts virtually forever."

"Every year about this time the Southern winds leave a fine desert sand on the windshields of cars parked outside in Continental Europe and Britain. Soon this sand dust will carry a surprise. Thanks to the Americans. Thanks to us. We did this to the world. And, we wonder why they hate and despise us so."
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
43
#7
2-0-Sixx said:
I wonder if Nitro considers this a WMD or perhaps, America is willingly using chemicals on their own troops
It could be considered a weapon of mass destruction, just like anthrax. I've read through some articles online about WMD, and according to what I have learned, it would be classified as such a weapon. As far as America willingly using it on their own troops, I'd have to say, I don't think so. I mean come on, are they firing uranium bullets at one another or shoving piles of dust in each others mouths? I would say that America is carelessly using these weapons without safety for our own troops.

Uranium filled bullets -- that sounds a little desperate to me. I don't understand why they would use such a thing. Are they just making sure that who they fire upon dies sooner or later as a casualty of war? It makes me cringe at what (our) government agencies do to maintain world order.

Using uranium is, well, cheating.. to win. Not that we couldn't pummel them with our military man-power, its cheating none the less.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#8
Nitro the Guru said:
Uranium filled bullets -- that sounds a little desperate to me. I don't understand why they would use such a thing. Are they just making sure that who they fire upon dies sooner or later as a casualty of war? It makes me cringe at what (our) government agencies do to maintain world order.
.
DU is used in bullets because of it's ability to penetrate heavily armored vehicles such as tanks, armored personnel carriers etc.

As far as America willingly using it on their own troops, I'd have to say, I don't think so. I mean come on, are they firing uranium bullets at one another or shoving piles of dust in each others mouths? I would say that America is carelessly using these weapons without safety for our own troops.
This isn't some new technology. Remember, they used DU in the first Iraq war and there have been PLENTY of scientific reports that show its deadly effects.

It's a lot more then just being "careless." They know of it's effects on the enemy, civilians and our own troops and they don't give a fuck. Already the government is turning their backs on sick troops. Remember the first war? "The gulf syndrome"? What ever happened to that?
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#9
Great article on DU bullets...http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.html

"In the first partial Pentagon disclosure of the amount of DU used in Iraq, a US Central Command spokesman told the Monitor that A-10 Warthog aircraft - the same planes that shot at the Iraqi planning ministry - fired 300,000 bullets. The normal combat mix for these 30-mm rounds is five DU bullets to 1 - a mix that would have left about 75 tons of DU in Iraq."



This is funny...

"Six American vehicles struck with DU "friendly fire" in 1991 were deemed to be too contaminated to take home, and were buried in Saudi Arabia. Of 16 more brought back to a purpose-built facility in South Carolina, six had to be buried in a low-level radioactive waste dump."

lol, too contaminated to take home, but perfectly fine to leave in another country!
 

Hatch

Sicc OG
Mar 12, 2004
156
0
0
#10
1. democracynow.org
2. traprockPEACE.org
3. christian science monitor

and you bitch and complain about NEWSMAX's bias when your articles are just as bad if not worse.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#12
LOL typical republican tactic. "But it's a liberal"

Or as Mclean would say, in improper grammar, "it's a bias liberal source".

Guide for Dittohead Republican debating;

Use one of three tactics:

1. Accuse opponent of "liberalism". Sling about the word "liberal" "liberally". This will obviously destroy their character and render any of their arguments invalid.

2. Take moral and religious high ground. George Bush was told by God to go to Iraq. Pat Buchanan wants coat hanger abortion clinics because he cares about women.

3. Use "shock phrases". Instead of "We had justification, good cause, and plenty of reasons to go in Iraq", say "You don't support the troops!" "They had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'".

or

When discussing Moveon.org ads, employ a blank stare while the "liberal" tried to sell you the reason they're acceptable, simply use a blank stare. Refer back to hitler footage. Listen to more useless arguments. Cue up Hitler footage. "Listen" to more arguments. Don KKK robes.

Using these "shock" techniques might not work on those "big city liberals with PHDs and who think", but it's sure to rally the support of every UFO-seeing, churchgoing, flag-waving hick in breadbasket states like Kentucky, Iowa, Illinois, etc.