Interesting UK Daily Mirror Article

by DakotaRed 75 Replies latest jw friends

  • Simon
    Simon

    Yes, I should point out that the UK is equally to blame but is now very much an ex-empire and so does not have the influence it used to. It tends to follow the USA lead because of the 'special relationship'.

    My personal thoughts? ...

    Although the history goes well back I believe that the spectacularly short-sighted and gung-ho policies by Reagan did a lot of damage and we're now paying for it. He seemed to see the world through B-Movie specs with him as the hero who could do no wrong.

    As for everyone being evil? I still don't believe that. There are plenty of people who speak out and resign over the things done (such as top UN officials) or who tell it like it is (Ex President Carter). The thing to do is keep the pressure on to make people do the right thing and not let them get away with the wrong.

    I find it fascinating how WTS like the governments are in what they do and how they want everyone to believe their stories and tow the line. Anyone who speaks out is a dissenter who is then demonised.

  • Trauma_Hound
    Trauma_Hound

    http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,57959,00.html

    U.S. Stocking Uranium-Rich Bombs?

    By Elliot Borin | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 2 next ยป
    alt

    02:00 AM Mar. 10, 2003 PT

    U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf may be armed with radioactive bombs and missiles hundreds of times more potent than similar weapons used during the Gulf War and the U.N. military campaign in Bosnia.

    As evidence that the United States is expanding its use of depleted uranium weapons beyond the relatively small 30-millimeter to 120-millimeter armor-piercing bullets and shells used by tanks and tank-killer aircraft in the Gulf and Balkans, weapons watchdogs cite the so-called "bunker-buster" bombs and missiles unleashed on Afghanistan.

    The Pentagon has not confirmed the use of uranium or depleted uranium in the bunker-busters, and it has refused to identify the composition of the dense-metal warheads that enable the missiles to penetrate structures deeply buried under earth, steel and reinforced concrete.

    But critics such as British researcher Dai Williams contend that only uranium -- in one form or another -- possesses the density and other characteristics necessary to achieve the penetration levels attributed to such weapons as the 2,000-pound AGM 130C air-to-ground cruise missile, and the guided bomb unit, or GBU, series of laser-guided hard-target penetrators intended to pierce bunkers and other reinforced structures.

    Williams and others also claim that patents covering conversion or modification of earlier generation bombs for use as bunker-busters indicate that depleted uranium is being used in these weapons.

    For example, the patent application for a narrow-profile version of the BLU-109B bomb (which is delivered by a GBU-24) specifically refers to penetrating bodies made of tungsten or depleted uranium.

    "If they're really using tungsten, why keep it classified?" Williams said.

    Depleted uranium, a byproduct of the nuclear fission process that powers both atomic bombs and power-generating plants, is an ideal material for munitions intended to blast holes into armored or otherwise reinforced targets that can only be pierced by projectiles possessing enormous amounts of kinetic energy.

    Since the kinetic energy of an object is one half its mass times the square of its speed, the denser the projectile, the higher the kinetic energy. When it comes to density, uranium (2.5 times heavier than iron and 1.7 times heavier than lead) is rivaled only by tungsten, which lacks depleted uranium's intense incendiary properties.

    Tungsten has another drawback: It's expensive. Depleted uranium, on the other hand, is dirt cheap. Tons of it, over 500 million pounds the last time anyone counted, is lying around in various states of nuclear "decay" at government repositories throughout the country.

    In an attempt to reduce this over-abundance of nuclear waste, the Defense Department provides depleted uranium to munitions makers such as Alliant Techsystems -- the largest maker of depleted uranium projectiles in the world -- at no cost and buys it back as completed weapons.

    Depleted uranium has a few drawbacks. It is 40 percent as radioactive as pure uranium and has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. In addition, the very volatility that makes it blaze like an atomic furnace upon impact converts a large percentage of the spent projectile into microscopic radioactive oxides that, when borne by the wind, may be inhaled by civilians miles from the battlefield.

    Despite this, Pentagon and Veterans Administration brass are adamant in insisting that depleted uranium is absolutely harmless to both combatants and non-combatants, and is in no way responsible for any of the symptoms associated with so-called "Gulf War syndrome."

    Perhaps the most extraordinary official endorsement of depleted uranium's benign nature came from former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, who once deemed it as safe as "leaded paint." Federal law has banned the use of leaded paint in residential structures since 1978 because of its extreme toxicity.

    But not everyone connected with the military is convinced that depleted uranium is risk-free.

    In early 1991, the Army sent physicist Doug Rokke to Iraq as part of the task force charged with assessing the after-battle effects of the estimated 300 tons of depleted-uranium weapons expended during the Gulf War. In the mid-1990s, he was recalled to active duty and made director of a project intended to develop training and management procedures for handling depleted uranium contamination.

    According to Rokke, "we are seeing adverse health effects among the entire group of warriors exposed during combat in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (and) civilians exposed in Iraq" and at U.S. and foreign installations where depleted uranium weapon testing and training has been carried out.

    Rokke also said the Pentagon was aware of "the probable hazards" prior to the Gulf War, a contention bolstered by an Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command report -- issued shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait -- that stated that depleted uranium is "linked to cancer when exposures are internal."

    Rokke said on-site investigators in Iraq found that 40 percent of the initial mass of the depleted uranium penetrators was converted to radioactive oxide while 60 percent was left on and around the impact area in solid form.

    "Equipment contamination included uranium oxides, other hazardous materials, unstable unexploded ordnance and byproducts of exploded ordnance," he said. "In addition, other radioactive materials were detected that could pose a risk through inhalation, ingestion or wound contamination.

    "Who would want thousands of solid uranium penetrators or pencils of masses between 180 and 4,500 grams lying in your backyard? Who would want any uranium contamination of any type lying in your backyard?"

  • Max Divergent
    Max Divergent

    Hi Simon - War is a bad thing, and somthing I wish could be avoided. However not being willing to fight means those who are have a terrible advantage. I'm also glad there are people willing to stand up and object to their governments decisions, that's healthy - and somthing one couldn't do in Iraq.

    But yes, I think a track record stands for somthing, but isn't enough to justify or condem current actions. Else Russia, China, France and Germany's conduct in the last century would have to be considered when reviewing their blocking of action against Saddam's Iraq.

    "Officer ... I stopped at the last two red lights like I was supposed to ... I should be allowed to go through the third" Is that how it works?

    I think it's more like Iraq saying, 'Officer, don't flash your lights at me you bastard! I'll sue you for harrasing me when all I do is run red lights...' and the Policeman being told to tear up the ticket by the Security Council coz Iraq's driving hasn't hurt anyone they know recently...

    I'd disagree about them not taking territory though ... vast amounts of the world are now under their economic control (the real weapon of the 21st century).

    I'm not sure that economic success can really be equated to military or direct political control... different beasts. If it is economic imperialism, then it's the most free and benevolent empire yet established. I don't think it is that, but if it is then I'll settle for it given the alternatives. But that's me.

    Freedom sure aint free.

    And thanks for the forum...

    Max

  • Trauma_Hound
    Trauma_Hound

    Great, we're threatening Russia now.

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/12/sprj.irq.main/index.html

    Source: Chile, Mexico are holdouts on Iraq

    Official: U.S. still needs one vote on U.N. resolution

    Wednesday, March 12, 2003 Posted: 10:49 AM EST (1549 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration believes that it is one vote shy of having nine of 15 votes needed on a U.N. Security Council resolution that sets a Monday deadline for Iraqi compliance, a senior U.S. State Department official said, and officials are focusing diplomatic energies on Mexico and Chile to secure their backing.

    President Bush has spent much of the last week on the telephone, lobbying council members to support the resolution.

    "Bush and [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair are attempting to do whatever it takes to get the Latins to commit," the official told CNN's Andrea Koppel.

    Blair told members of the House of Commons on Wednesday that the council was considering a series of benchmarks that Iraq would have to meet to prove it was disarming -- a step that Chile and Mexico previously suggested.

    The State Department official also said the United States is confident it has the support of the three African members of the Security Council -- Cameroon, Guinea and Angola -- despite a visit this week by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin to secure their opposition to the resolution.

    In addition, U.S. and Pakistani officials said Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf can be counted on for his support when a vote happens this week.

    That leaves Mexico and Chile as holdouts, the State Department official said. To secure these votes, the United States, Great Britain and Spain have teamed up to work all the angles. On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell held a three-way conference call with his allied counterparts as they coordinated strategies.

    Nevertheless, Russia and France have threatened to veto the resolution. Nine council votes are needed to pass the resolution, but a veto by any of the five permanent members would defeat it. Britain, France, Russia, China and the United States are permanent members.

    Blair sets Iraqi benchmarks

    British Prime Minister Tony Blair outlined a series of tests Wednesday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would have to meet to prove that he was complying with Security Council resolutions.

    Blair told a raucous session of the House of Commons that the council was considering a number of benchmarks for Iraq that would be added to a new resolution.

    These include handing over supplies of anthrax, or proving they were destroyed; allowing Iraqi scientists and their families to travel outside the country to be interviewed by inspectors; and accounting for unmanned drones that the United States and Britain say can be used to spray chemical or biological weapons.

    "I believe if we set those conditions out clearly, if we back them by the will of a united United Nations, then we have a chance of even now of averting conflict," Blair said, "but what we must show is the determination to act if Saddam will not fully comply."

    Blair also faced sharp questions from members of Parliament over comments from U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said Tuesday that the United States might be prepared to go to war against Iraq without Britain.

    Rumsfeld suggested the British force could be spectators -- taking up a peacekeeping role after a U.S. invasion to oust Saddam. (Full story)

    When asked about those remarks, Blair said that the United States could act alone and that Britain would not take military action unless it was in its national interest.

    But the prime minister confirmed British commitment to disarming Iraq and pushing for a new U.N. resolution.

    "I believe it's important that we hold firm to the course," Blair said. "What's at stake here is not whether the United States goes alone, but whether the international community backs up clear instructions [to Iraq] with necessary action."

    Blair accused those nations threatening to veto the new resolution of undermining world security and harming the unity of the United Nations.

    U.S. warns Russia

    In an interview with the Russian newspaper Izvestia, the U.S. ambassador to Russia warned Moscow that using its veto in the Security Council could have "consequences for our relations."

    "There is a big difference between Russia's veto and abstention," said the ambassador, Alexander Vershbow. "Either step will be interpreted differently by the U.S. people and by the Congress. Russia should carefully weigh these consequences."

    Vershbow outlined what is at stake: a "large agenda" that includes increased U.S. investment in Russia's energy sector, new forms of cooperation in national security, joint efforts in missile defense and the fight against terrorism and cooperation in space. In addition, Russia's relationship with NATO is bearing fruit, the diplomat said.

    "It will be a shame," Vershbow said in the interview, "if progress in these areas will be postponed or even reversed because of serious differences over Iraq."

    CNN Correspondents Jill Dougherty, John King, Andrea Koppel and Richard Roth and Producer Elise Labott contributed to this report. For latest developments, see CNN.com's Iraq Tracker.

  • Sapphire54
  • Sapphire54
    Sapphire54

    Not sure why that didn't post. I heard an interesting program on NPR the other day http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1188587 talking about what might happen if the US goes to war.

  • Trauma_Hound
    Trauma_Hound

    And what does the pro war crowd say to this now? Listen to this, I think he could be considered an expert!

  • DakotaRed
    DakotaRed
    And what does the pro war crowd say to this now?

    >>>>YAWN<<<<

  • Simon
    Simon

    The pro-war crowd does not like to 'engage the enemy' when they do not have overwhelming arguments to win.

    No one can argue for this war and they know it.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Just as I thought...

    How come the pro-war crowd are such cowards?

    One would think that us pinko-lefty-fag-commie-treehugging-peacenick-beatnick-hippie-anarchists would be the cowardly ones, as we don't want a war (unless it's the last resort and with a wide consensus in favour and in accord with International law).

    But when it comes to defending the arguements for war it suddenly gets awfully quiet. All those brave pro-war people suddenly have better things to do. We understand?

    Dakota, by YAWN do you mean "I can not assemble a counter arguement or adequate response but prefer to retain my current opinion as I find it difficult to revise my view of the world?" Do you mean you're not getting enough sleep? Please explain.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit