A poll in the UK showed around a 50 - 50 split as to whether or not the UK should get involved in an assault on Iraq.
Why not just send in the S.A.S?
Englishman.
Edited by - Englishman on 10 August 2002 8:43:6
U.S. War with Iraq
by Crazy151drinker 56 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
LB
An Oregon paper reprinted an article appearing in a London paper. It talked about what bad shape the British equipment was in. How the guns were jamming after only a few rounds (fine desert sand) and how communications were so bad that the British tanks had to drive up close to each other and shout to communicate. At any given time during the tests at least 50% of their helicoptors were unable to fly. The London article blasted the leaders for allowing this proud army to be subjected to this embarrasment. They have been warned that they may not be allowed to assist the US in any attack on Iraq. Too many lives at risk with current conditions.
Now, I know a bit about British commandos. They are as good as they get. Give them a task and the job will get done. The UN and US forces can use the British. Hopefully these equipment issues will be resolved. At the very least the British ground forces may not be able to combat Iraq, but they certainly are welcomed in any capacity in which they can be used.
Englishman have you read anything of this locally? All I have seen is the one article in the Portland Oregonian.
-
Englishman
LB,
The article is correct.
You may recall that, after Sep 11, there were 70,000 UK troops on hand in the middle-east. There brief was to test equipment in desert conditions. The equipment failed miserably, this was due to the fact the the Brits hadn't fought a campaign in desert conditions since WW2, and were inexperienced in desert fighting.
At least they now have the opportunity to rectify the situation, which they will.
Englishman.
-
Englishman
Found it!
"The army's main battle tank does not function properly in the desert and it would cost tens of millions of pounds to adapt it for military operations - including action against Iraq - according to a leaked Ministry of Defence document.
The document, a briefing paper for General Sir Michael Walker, the head of the army, also warns that the ageing stock of armoured fighting vehicles are increasingly unreliable and difficult to maintain.
Problems with the Challenger 2 tank were discovered during a major exercise, Swift Sword, in Oman last year. Special air filters were fitted to some of the tanks to protect their engines.
"Options are being investigated for the desertisation of the UK's CR2s (Challenger 2's); any decision will have to take into account any timeframe, cost and numbers that could be involved," the document says.
One "globalisation" package - that would allow the tank to operate in any conditions - being considered by the MoD would cost 140,000 per tank,.
The army has bought 386 Challenger 2 tanks - adapting all of them for desert conditions would cost more than 50m. The army has already spent 23m on desert modifications to the tank, according to the national audit office.
The paper points out that the Challenger 2 uses depleted uranium shells which, according to some studies, can cause cancer. It says: "The use of DU... remains an important option in military operations... if the safety of British troops in any future operation were to require such a capability against armour, DU ammunition would be used."
The document also says it is "becoming increasingly difficult" to maintain the army's FV430 series of armoured fighting vehicles which "provide critical capabilities as infantry support weapon platforms, formation command and control posts... and for casualty evacuation". The vehicles are not due to be replaced until 2008. "
Apparently, the Challenger 2 is supposed to be the worlds most powerful battle tank, it works fine as long is it is dusted down regularly.
Edited by - Englishman on 10 August 2002 11:0:57
-
Fredhall
Hey All,
If Bush want to fight with Saddam then let them fight in a boxing ring. War is sicking and their is no justice in it.
-
seawolf
Another reason why I'm against this is the issue of Depleted Uranium (DU)
DU is made from leftover U238, which is one of three types of uranium (U234, U235, U238). It is highly radioactive and has a half-life of 4.2 billion years. The military uses DU inside of different weapons because it is very dense and makes the shells penetrate deeper, etc.
A 120mm tank round contains 10 pounds of DU (4000 grams). In the Gulf War the US fired almost a million DU rounds and left 1,400 wrecked radioactive Iraqi tanks.
There was a whole CBC show on it and here are some quotes from the CBC report:
Rostker himself reported in 1998 that American soldiers in their thousands had been unnecessarily exposed to DU; this seven years after the end of the Gulf War, when it was first used.
The number of Gulf War vets who were in contact with radioactive tanks or breathed in contaminated dust could be in the tens of thousands. Yet so far, only a fraction -- about 200 vets, like Jerry Wheat -- are being monitored. The Pentagon still insists there is not enough evidence to link exposure with illness.
The US knew of this during the Gulf War: http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/du/doc1.html
Now this crap is littering Afghanistan and Kosovo. Who is going to pay for all this cleanup? Aren't these people going to be a little mad when they find out we are darn near making their country glow in the dark? Do a google search and you can find links to pages showing all the odd deaths and birth defects, etc that people/babies in Iraq have been suffering since the end of the Gulf War.
Also, there is A LOT of information on it at the BBC. A few quotes:
Both the US and the UK acknowledge that the dust can be dangerous if it is inhaled, though they say the danger is short-lived, localised, and much more likely to lead to chemical poisoning than to irradiation.
Many veterans from the Gulf and Kosovan wars, though, believe that DU has made them seriously ill.
Doug Rokke, a former US army colonel who served in Vietnam, was sent to the Gulf in 1991 to advise on cleaning up radioactive debris.
He says almost every member of the team of 30 experts he took with him is now seriously ill, and three have died of lung cancer.
Others say they have children born with defects.
I could post VOLUMES of information on this stuff. I worry about the effects of this on Americans as well as Iraqis.
sea
http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/du/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2001/depleted_uranium/default.stm
-
Dizzy Cat
I agree with Fredhall in a way .....
But, I'd rather see a deathmatch in a small Quake 3 arena, broadcast across the planet. The loser is shipped off to a small island full of JWs ....
-
seawolf
But, I'd rather see a deathmatch in a small Quake 3 arena, broadcast across the planet. The loser is shipped off to a small island full of JWs ....
hehe and when GB 2.0 rail guns Saddam the word "Impressive" echoes around the world.
-
Xander
Do a google search and you can find links to pages showing all the odd deaths and birth defects, etc that people/babies in Iraq have been suffering since the end of the Gulf War.
'Gulf War Syndrome' had been attributed to Iraqi chemical weapons - apparently, at least 2 scuds and numerous chemical artillery rounds were fired at allied forces. Both scuds were intercepted, but, then, with chemical weapons...blowing up the missile doesn't really help if it's already ballistic.
cleaning up radioactive debris
A common misunderstanding is that DU is radioactive. It is not. (Okay, *technically* - it IS - but not much more than smoke detectors). If it was, don't you think the ground forces handling the rounds since the early 80s (when they were introduced) would have been effected as well?
It is highly radioactive and has a half-life of 4.2 billion years
Anyone with a high school physics level of education can tell you right away this is a contradiction. If it takes 4.2 billion years for half an amount of DU to decay to completely inert matter (actually, 4.5 billion years), how much radioactive material is decaying every day or week? Answer: not bloody much!
Truth is that the amount of solar radiation the ground troops were exposed to in the middle east is a bigger source of radioactivity than the DU rounds were.
EDIT: an interesting read:
Another interesting note:
Although DU has trace amounts of radioactivity, that is not considered a problem - it is VERY low. What IS a problem is that it is a 'heavy metal' - like Tungsten (in light bulbs) and lead (in most weapons ammunition). All heavy metals are toxic to humans - IE, poisonous if ingested.
That's kind of a 'well, duh', I know, but it points to the real fact of the matter. Yeah, sure, DU *IS* dangerous. But exactly as dangerous as every other metal ever used in tank gun ammunition and sidearms, etc.
Edited by - Xander on 10 August 2002 14:43:25
-
seawolf
'Gulf War Syndrome' had been attributed to Iraqi chemical weapons - apparently, at least 2 scuds and numerous chemical artillery rounds were fired at allied forces. Both scuds were intercepted, but, then, with chemical weapons...blowing up the missile doesn't really help if it's already ballistic.
Actually, I've seen three different types of 'Gulf War Syndrome' talked about. One was what you mention ^^^. The effects of immunizations on US and British troops is another. The other was DU.
If it was, don't you think the ground forces handling the rounds since the early 80s (when they were introduced) would have been effected as well?
yes. some quotes from more CBC articles:
On Thursday, the Netherlands became the latest country to begin an investigation after two soldiers one formerly based in Kosovo and the other in Bosnia died of leukemia.
At least 12 soldiers, including four French and six Italian servicemen, have died of leukemia which some say may be related to NATO's use of ammunition containing depleted uranium. Spain, Portugal, Turkey and Finland are all screening their Balkans veterans.
"The issue has taken a serious turn and the alarm caused is more than legitimate," Italian Premier Giuliano Amato said in a newspaper interview.
NATO's force in Bosnia, SFOR, acknowledged using depleted uranium ammunition there in late 1994 and 1995, but denied that it was making soldiers sick.
from here: http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/01/04/balkans010104
Terry Riordon asked his wife to have his body tested for any mysterious ailments after he died. Tissues from his kidney, liver, brain and bones underwent intricate testing.
CBC News released the results Monday morning which found evidence of depleted uranium still in his body nine years after the war ended.
"We found in the bone tissue, particularly cancerous bone, that it contained depleted uranium," he said.
Durakovic believes when missiles exploded, radioactive dust was breathed in by veterans. He says Riordon's tests show those radioactive particles never left the body.
from here: http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/02/07/gulfvet000207
Interesting link you provided. I read it but I have one concern with it. My concern is that the military wants to protect their butts and deny there's a problem for the same (?) reasons that WTBTS wants to deny there's a pedophile problem: they don't want to get sued and have to pay extremely large amounts of money for healthcare and compensation.
Actually when I talked about doing the google search I wasn't referring to anything to do with Americans, British....etc. I was specifically referring to the Iraqis. I first got interested in this when someone on a forum--I think it was the [H]ardforum--brought it up and provided a link. I was stunned. I went to yahoo and put in some words and that link was the first one that came up. It's too bad for here and should probably be in the adult form so I won't post the link. Here's a tame BBC link that touches upon the iraqi birth defects and why some feel that the governments don't want to pay:
The Ministry of Defence still maintains that there is no evidence that DU poses a significant risk to the veterans themselves.
And it says that while it cannot guarantee that DU will not produce birth defects in their children, the evidence suggests there is no massive effect. Kenny Duncan has a jaundiced view of the ministry. "They're sitting around watching veterans die", he says.
"They're waiting for us to die off, so they don't need to pay out money. They'll just tell us nothing and deny everything.
"They don't care about the veterans' health, even though some from the Balkans are starting to get ill. And still they say it's not an issue."from here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1122566.stm
A few quotes:
Soldiers who inhale or swallow high levels of depleted uranium (DU) on the battlefield could suffer kidney failure within days, according to a new report from the one of the UK's premier scientific bodies, the Royal Society. There are also long term risks for children who play in heavily contaminated areas, it says.
DU shells in the ground could contaminate the soil, food and water of communities that return to live on the battlefields, the report says. This may be enough to harm local children, particularly if they swallow soil.http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992024
"During the Gulf war, Britain and the United States pounded the city and its surroundings with 96,000 depleted-uranium shells. ...Depleted uranium has an incubation period in humans of five years. In the four years from 1991 (the end of the Gulf war) until 1994, the Basrah Maternity Hospital saw 11 congenital anomalies. Last year there were 221.
Then there is the alarming increase in cases of leukaemia among Basrah babies lucky enough to have been born with the full complement of limbs and features in the right place. The hospital treated 15 children with leukaemia in 1993. In 2000 it was 60. By the end of this year that figure again will be topped. And so it will go on. Forever. (Depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.1 billion years. Total disintegration occurs after 25 billion years, the age of the earth.)http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=107715
The inhabitants of a Caribbean island which the US navy has used for 60 years as a bombing range, including firing depleted uranium shells, are seeking $100m (68m) in damages for an abnormally high cancer rate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4130731,00.html
and it goes on and on and on......
