I had a couple of questions:
(1) Is there and credible evidence that the US used chemical, radiological, or biological weapons in Iraq?

(2) How did Saddam get his hands on the Chemical weapons he used against the Kurds, as well as against the Iranians? Did he make them? From what? Sand?

During the Iran-Iraq War, didn’t the USA give the Iraqis satellite info with the positions of the Iranian troops to better allowed the Iraqis to gas the Iranians? Wasn’t this the main method by which the Iraqis halted the Iranians - who at the time were sending their own people running across mined areas just to clear them – with their actual bodies.

How can we try Saddam for gassing 800 “Enemies of the State/Insurgents/Traitors/Kurd/Civilians/Innocent People” while just earlier we had helped his generals to gas 1000+’s of Iranians? Really now, this Saddam trial is all Bull Shit. If we try Saddam then we should try Bush Senior too.

Well, let's also try the manufacturers of the weapons, too. And anyone who transported them and stored them.

And we should also try anyone who made the containers to hold the chemicals and the shells for the bombs, too. Hey, let's also try the manufacturers who made the COMPONENT parts of the chemical weapons!

Ooh, we should also try the people who refiined the crude oil into jet fuel used in the planes that transported the weapons! Oh, shit, and we should also try the pilots and workers who loaded the planes. ....and the air traffic controllers who pointed the pilots in the right direction.

....oooooooh, hey, this is fun ......can anyone think of anyone else that we should sue?

Baron Max

....oooooooh, hey, this is fun ......can anyone think of anyone else that we should sue?

Baron Max

investment banking companies,i want some money.thought i had £250 in one of my savings accounts turned out to be £2.50.:( damn you decimal point!

Well, let's also try the manufacturers of the weapons, too. OK done.

Anyway Baron, you're not addressing my questions.

OK, let me poise a specific example.

Do you agree (yes or no) with this statement:

If the US military used chemical, biological, or radiological weapons against people who are, in the words of Eric Cartman, “resisting they’re authority” in Faluja, killing them - then the head of the military (say Saddam’s counterpart) is equally as liable as Saddam?

It’s basically a question in the form of: Is what's good for the goose good for the gander?

Well is it?

Michael

It's kind of surreal, to draw a line in the sand and say, OK we're killing tens of thousands of civilians; and anyone who resists moves from the civilian category into this other elusive "insurgent" category - which are basically armed civilian resistance and some how morally OK to kill?

Ohh Hooo but when Saddam did the same ... why that a crime against humanity!

That’s crazy.

Saddam wanted to suppress the Kurdish fighters and so he killed them along with their families. Which is wrong.

The US military wants to suppress the Sunni fighters and so they kill them along with their families. Which is somehow right?

Don’t you see how Crazy that sounds.


Incidentally, Richard Armitage has made the point that Germany and Japan were cowed because they were so thoroughly beaten and their populaces so completely horrified by the existent with which the Allies were willing to go to destroy them, that only then, at the conclusion of the war, were we able to remake them in our image. And that was only possible because the people were highly educated, united by culture, religion, language and nationhood and also industrialized.

None of which Iraq has going for it and because WE attacked THEM we can’t really go for the wind-up KO that we did during WWII. So now, because of the “Bush initiative” we’re screwed. We should have listened to whaty EVERYONE was telling us. Namely the French and Germans (and English ironically enough). But Ohhh Hoooo Noooo. We’re American, we know everything, we can do anything, we can do no wrong – Yeee-fucking-Hawh lets get us a Croosayed goen down dar in da Middle East and make us a little America that’s loves Jesus and Jews … YeeeHawwwww…..

Do you think we’ll win the War Baron? Will we achieve those lofty goals the White House set out before us? A free prosperous secular democratic Iraq that loved America and Israli?

Haaa! Fat Fucking Chance.

OK done.

Anyway Baron, you're not addressing my questions.

OK, let me poise a specific example.

Do you agree (yes or no) with this statement:

If the US military used chemical, biological, or radiological weapons against people who are, in the words of Eric Cartman, “resisting they’re authority” in Faluja, killing them - then the head of the military (say Saddam’s counterpart) is equally as liable as Saddam?

It’s basically a question in the form of: Is what's good for the goose good for the gander?

Well is it?

Michael

I'm not Max but I'll address it.

The question posed is moot because the U.S. would take no such action. There's no difference in your question and asking what would happen if the Americans decided to bomb London.

Anything else? Perhaps something reasonable this time?

I'm not Max but I'll address it.

The question posed is moot because the U.S. would take no such action. There's no difference in your question and asking what would happen if the Americans decided to bomb London.

Anything else? Perhaps something reasonable this time????

Thanks Light, but maybe I'll give a couple specific scenarios to make sure we'll on the same page.

You agree that:

1) The US would never use an ignited chemical such as napalm or one of its similarly effective derivatives in war (all of which indiscriminately kill)? Is THAT something you agree with?

2) The US would never ever carpet bomb a village?

3) The US would never use Uranium tipped weapons?

4) If the US were certain that Saddam was going to Chemically bomb Iranians, they’d never give his generals the coordinates of the Iranians positions – knowing full well that the Iranians would be gassed to death?
(who’s the killer, the gun or the hand that aims it?)

You would agree with the above statements?

Well are they ALL always for ever and all times true?

No no no never would the US use something like Agent Orange? No ho ho…. Nope no no no … never would …. Aint gonna happen?


Answer me this Light: If the US doesn’t indiscriminately kill Iraqis than why are there tens of thousands dead civilians in Iraq?

SAND <---- insert head.

???

Thanks Light, but maybe I'll give a couple specific scenarios to make sure we'll on the same page.

You agree that:

1) The US would never use an ignited chemical such as napalm or one of its similarly effective derivatives in war (all of which indiscriminately kill)? Is THAT something you agree with?

2) The US would never ever carpet bomb a village?

3) The US would never use Uranium tipped weapons?

4) If the US were certain that Saddam was going to Chemically bomb Iranians, they’d never give his generals the coordinates of the Iranians positions – knowing full well that the Iranians would be gassed to death?
(who’s the killer, the gun or the hand that aims it?)

You would agree with the above statements?

Well are they ALL always for ever and all times true?

No no no never would the US use something like Agent Orange? No ho ho…. Nope no no no … never would …. Aint gonna happen?


Answer me this Light: If the US doesn’t indiscriminately kill Iraqis than why are there tens of thousands dead civilians in Iraq?

SAND <---- insert head.

No head in the sand at my location. :)

I agree that 1 & 2 happened.

On number 3, I believe you don't understand that it was depleted uranium, nor do I believe you understand it use.

I cannot address number 4 as I'm not familiar with it. Can you provide a reliable link that gives the details involved?

I believe you also misunderstand what Agent Orange was and it's use. At the time, it was applied as a defoliant to expose enemy locations. And at that time no one had any idea it would degrade and form dioxin nor what effects that would have. It was only discovered well after the fact. You may recall that there was a serious war going on and it appeared to be a useful tool.

The primary reason there are so many dead in Iraq is the direct result of actions by the insurgents. You'll find it exceptionally difficult to work your way around that one, too. Just like your claims about "uranium tipped" weapons and Agent Orange.

"I believe you don't understand that it was depleted uranium, nor do I believe you understand it use."

the half life of uranium is greater then 1000 years, the american nuclear program started in the 1940's (60 years ago) the uranium is still highly radioactive and dangerous
it is used because it is very effective against tanks and other armoured vehicles

U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0818-02.htm)
Here are some excerpts:

During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them. But the full nature of the program, as described by former Defense Intelligence Agency officers, was not previously disclosed.

Though senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.

He reported that Iraq had used chemical weapons to cinch its victory, one former D.I.A. official said. Colonel Francona saw zones marked off for chemical contamination, and containers for the drug atropine scattered around, indicating that Iraqi soldiers had taken injections to protect themselves from the effects of gas that might blow back over their positions. (Colonel Francona could not be reached for comment.)

C.I.A. officials supported the program to assist Iraq, though they were not involved. Separately, the C.I.A. provided Iraq with satellite photography of the war front.

Col. Walter P. Lang, retired, the senior defense intelligence officer at the time, said he would not discuss classified information, but added that both D.I.A. and C.I.A. officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran.

"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. What Mr. Reagan's aides were concerned about, he said, was that Iran not break through to the Fao Peninsula and spread the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Colonel Lang asserted that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Senior Reagan administration officials did nothing to interfere with the continuation of the program, a former participant in the program said.

Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer)

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

From the State Department:
Did the U.S. Use "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah? (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html)

Notice it’s entitled “Illegal”. Which is a matter of the military – Nuclear weapons are legal, so what? That’s why my question was Chemical Biological or radiological.

Here’s some excepts:

The fighting in Fallujah, Iraq has led to a number of widespread myths including false charges that the United States is using chemical weapons such as napalm and poison gas. None of these allegations are true. (note: the US could be using napalm-like weapons and this statement is technically still true)

In both stories, Islam Online noted that U.S. forces had used napalm-like incendiary weapons during the march to Baghdad in the spring of 2003.

Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003.

First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003.(such as "insurgents")

Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.(why make mention of "very sparingly" They are, after all, only used to light up the sky? Yeah Right...)

Fire Bombs in Iraq: Napalm By Any Other Name (http://electroniciraq.net/news/1928.shtml)
The US military has in its current arsenal a modern form of napalm. Known as the MK-77 Mod 5, the bombs are dropped from aircraft and ignite on impact. They contain a lethal mixture of aircraft fuel and polystyrene, which forms a sticky, flammable gel. As it burns, the gel sticks to structures and to the bodies of its victims. The light aluminium containers lack stabilising fins, making them far from precision weapons.

Use of incendiaries is restricted by the 1980 UN Convention on 'Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious Or To Have Indiscriminate Effects'. The United Kingdom has fully ratified this convention and must abide by it and its additional protocols. More than 80 other countries have done the same.


"Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon," said Robert Musil, director of the organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility. "It takes up an awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds."

However, although the United States has ratified the convention, it has not signed up to the protocol on incendiary weapons

Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire missiles swept in low from the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald.

Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the Iraqi observation post was obliterated. "I pity anybody who's in there," a marine sergeant said. "We told them to surrender."

During and immediately after the invasion, US officials denied claims that napalm weapons were being deployed. [5] However, as military personnel and journalists in Iraq quickly presented evidence of their use, by August 2003 Pentagon spokesmen were forced to admit that MK-77 firebombs had been dropped. Past denials were justified on the grounds that questioners had used the term 'napalm' instead of 'firebombs' or 'MK-77s'. The US claims to have destroyed all its stocks of 'napalm' and argues that the MK-77 cannot be included in this term. However, the Pentagon admits that the MK-77 is an incendiary with a function 'remarkably similar' to that of napalm.

In November 2004 US forces launched a massive attack on the city of Fallujah. Much of the city was destroyed and tens of thousands of residents fled as refugees.

Reports have emerged of burnt and melted bodies in the city, consistent with the use of napalm or the equally controversial weapon white phosphorus (also known as 'Willy Pete')

To the *Buried Head*

"Pull Pull Pull Pull!!!!"

:)

"I believe you don't understand that it was depleted uranium, nor do I believe you understand it use."

the half life of uranium is greater then 1000 years, the american nuclear program started in the 1940's (60 years ago) the uranium is still highly radioactive and dangerous
it is used because it is very effective against tanks and other armoured vehicles

Well, I suppose half right is better than nothing. You have the usage correctly but completely misunderstand the material itself.

Read and learn that it's nothing like you suppose it to be:

Depleted uranium results from the enriching of natural uranium for use in nuclear reactors. Natural uranium is a slightly radioactive metal that is present in most rocks and soils as well as in many rivers and sea water. Natural uranium consists primarily of a mixture of two isotopes (forms) of uranium, Uranium-235 (U235) and Uranium-238 (U238), in the proportion of about 0.7 and 99.3 percent, respectively. Nuclear reactors require U235 to produce energy, therefore, the natural uranium has to be enriched to obtain the isotope U235 by removing a large part of the U238. Uranium-238 becomes DU, which is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium. Since DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, there is very little decay of those DU materials.

To the *Buried Head*

"Pull Pull Pull Pull!!!!"

:)

Nice try but no cigar. I asked for reliable sources and of the three you supplied only one fit that requirement - and it did NOT support you claims

And I'm still waiting for your rebuttal on your other points that I debunked.

How can we try Saddam for gassing 800 “Enemies of the State/Insurgents/Traitors/Kurd/Civilians/Innocent People” while just earlier we had helped his generals to gas 1000+’s of Iranians? Really now, this Saddam trial is all Bull Shit. If we try Saddam then we should try Bush Senior too.
You are correct, sir. It's hypocritical. In spite of a stated policy of eliminating Saddam's chemical and biological weapons, the real policy was getting rid of Saddam, perhaps because the sanctions were going to come off and he was going to trade Iraqi oil in Euros instead of dollars.

Ever wonder why the OJ trial was all over the TV, but we don't get to see Saddam's trial at all?

You are correct, sir. It's hypocritical. In spite of a stated policy of eliminating Saddam's chemical and biological weapons, the real policy was getting rid of Saddam, perhaps because the sanctions were going to come off and he was going to trade Iraqi oil in Euros instead of dollars.

Ever wonder why the OJ trial was all over the TV, but we don't get to see Saddam's trial at all?

????

What is that supposed to mean? Why wonder? The trial hasn't even fromally begun yet! And besides, it will happen in Iraq, not L.A. California!

Oh, it starts on the 19th, I didn't even know. We will see of the US media even makes a big deal of it.

[QUOTE=Michael]
How can we try Saddam...QUOTE]

I overlooked this earlier. You make it painfully obvious that you would rather just talk and complain instead of paying attention.

"We" are not trying Saddam. His own people will do that.

On number 3, I believe you don't understand that it was depleted uranium, nor do I believe you understand it use.

That just means it's passed it's half life and so it's not AS radioactive as regular Uranium - yes technically handling the stuff should be safe because the particles that this stuff emits can't get through our skin - but tell that to sufferers of Gulf War Syndrome - more so tell that to the locals of every region in the world where the US has employed Depleted Uranium rounds, where those rounds get into the soil, into the water table and into these people's food and cancer rates and birth defects shoot up by an incredible amount. This stuff is just nasty!

The primary reason there are so many dead in Iraq is the direct result of actions by the insurgents.

That's right, it's their fault for opposing our invasion which was based on false pretences, and complete mishandling of the occupation! I'm not saying that armed revolt is necessarily justified, just that it makes a lot of damned sence - who is ultimately responsible for the insurgency?

On another note, it was American companies under the Authority of Reagan that sold Saddam those chemical weapons, as well as the helicopters to disperse them - but that was back when he was our golden boy – the one who had bought a secular democracy to Iraq rather than another religious fundamentalist state – OOPS! History sucks. I wish that other Americans had attention spans as long as mine, it'd be fun to share in the irony.

yes technically handling the stuff should be safe because the particles that this stuff emits can't get through our skin

Hey, didn't you know DU rounds magically stop before hitting someone's skin so that it can't infect inner body parts or anything else it may be close to hitting before magically stopping? :p

- N

And I'm still waiting for your rebuttal on your other points that I debunked.
Are we both reading the same page?

1) The US would never use an ignited chemical such as napalm or one of its similarly effective derivatives in war (all of which indiscriminately kill)? Is THAT something you agree with?

2) The US would never ever carpet bomb a village?

I agree that 1 & 2 happened.

3) The US would never use Uranium tipped weapons?

On number 3, I believe you don't understand that it was depleted uranium, nor do I believe you understand it use.So you agree that we used the material.

That only leaves (#4)

As to the ill effects, sure, maybe they’re not more than any other heavy metal. However, we’re really doing an experiment here aren’t we? An experiment on the next generation of Iraqi children.

US State Department (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-107572.html) Which linked to

Ministry of DEFENCE: Depleted Uranium (http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/) Which linked to

Depleted Uranium (http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/facts.htm) Which linked to

The Depleted Uranium Oversight Board (DUOB) - An Introduction (http://www.duob.org.uk/) Which linked to

DUOB Testing Program: Interim Summary of Results (http://www.duob.org.uk/interim_summary.htm) Which said:

As of 22 July 2005, analyses had been completed for 164 samples from veterans, including 157 with duplicate testing at both laboratories. In addition, five spiked samples had been analysed by both laboratories, and a further five by one laboratory (the duplicate analyses for this second batch of five spiked samples from the other laboratory will be available later). Which indicates that maybe there is not a problem in adult males.

Ironically enough, when I looked into the effects on children I found this (which does back your supposition and does not negate my question - which you do agree with).

Depleted uranium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium) Dr Richard Guthrie, an expert in chemical warfare at Sussex University, argues that due to the fact that no pathological evidence exists linking depleted uranium to birth defects, a more likely cause for this increase in birth defects was the Iraqi Army’s use of mustard agents during its war with Iran. Sulphur mustard is also known to cause cancers, leukaemias and birth defects, even for relatively low exposures levels. The children of the residents of Halabja as well as those of Iranian veterans of the Iran Iraq war have developed cancers and birth defects. Neither groups had been exposed to depleted uranium, but both groups had been exposed to sulfur mustard agents.

Which brings us to #4:

4) If the US were certain that Saddam was going to Chemically bomb Iranians, they’d never give his generals the coordinates of the Iranians positions – knowing full well that the Iranians would be gassed to death?

So the New York Times is NOT a credible source? What, only the US State Department as credible? Jesus, that’s a bit rich don’t you think? You only trust the government to tell you what morally questionable things the government is doing/has done? Haaaa too funny!

Explain why that particular reporting in the NY Times is NOT credible. The reporting seemed diligent to me.

light said "Depleted uranium results from the enriching of natural uranium for use in nuclear reactors. Natural uranium is a slightly radioactive metal that is present in most rocks and soils as well as in many rivers and sea water. Natural uranium consists primarily of a mixture of two isotopes (forms) of uranium, Uranium-235 (U235) and Uranium-238 (U238), in the proportion of about 0.7 and 99.3 percent, respectively. Nuclear reactors require U235 to produce energy, therefore, the natural uranium has to be enriched to obtain the isotope U235 by removing a large part of the U238. Uranium-238 becomes DU, which is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium. Since DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, there is very little decay of those DU materials."

a few quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
"it is toxic in the same manner as lead and other heavy metals."
"DU can disperse into the air and water, as mentioned in a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) study"
"The most important concern is the potential for future groundwater contamination"
"Military DU studies mainly evaluated external exposure, but other studies take inhalation risk into consideration. These studies indicate that DU passes into humans more easily than previously thought after battlefield use"
"A 1997 report by the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) suggested that DU posed serious health risks."
"In 1996 and 1997, the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, passed a resolution to ban the use of depleted uranium weapons."

i could go on, but seriously light, you must realise that DU is deffinately dangerous because it is toxic, and is possibly dangerous because of radioactivity. it is banned by the UN

Here are a couple of points that have been distorted....

Answer me this Light: If the US doesn’t indiscriminately kill Iraqis than why are there tens of thousands dead civilians in Iraq?, Michael

Iraqbodycount http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/iraq.bodycount has stated around 25,000 civilians may have been killed during the recent Iraq war. Their agenda (the first page the large words "BODY COUNT"), however, may be in question, and they rely completely on reports from the media. Not exactly a scientific approach to the problem. Listing a day by day, death count is simply ridiculous and irresponsible.

The truth is it is very difficult, and probably impossible to get an accurate body count. The Swiss government, for example, abandoned a study (considerably more scientific than above) due to a large amount of criticism.

http://peaceuk.co.uk.mdl-net.co.uk/archive/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=460

As for indiscriminate killing, I think here is a website that gives you a good example....

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html

Germany, for instance, lost 2 million civilians. Japan lost 350,000. China, probably 9 million in world war II alone, and another 2.5 million in its civil war right after. It is estimated that 200,000 civilians were killed in the bombing of Berlin alone.

Historically, you can consider the care that the U.S. has taken in avoiding civilian casualites while invading a country of 30 million, even if the death toll is indeed, 25,000. If the U.S. really did just role over Iraq, the death count would be enormous. Watch your wording......

the Pentagon admits that the MK-77 is an incendiary with a function 'remarkably similar' to that of napalm., Michael

No one argues that it is napalm, including the United States....

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk77.htm

by August 2003 Pentagon spokesmen were forced to admit that MK-77 firebombs had been dropped., Michael

The official you speak of is Adam Ingram, and he did admit the use of the MK-77. They were used in 2003 to attack sites that were away from civilians and military in nature. In fact, use of napalm against the military is not considered illegal in war..... As to Fallujah, where you believe it was used, no pentagon official ever admitted to using it on that location. All reports to the contrary were supplied by the media and Iraqi civilians who simply guessed on what they were witnessing.

US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4417024.stm)

Italian state TV, Rai, has broadcast a documentary accusing the US military of using white phosphorus bombs against civilians in the Iraqi city of Falluja.

Again, from the US State Dept: Did the U.S. Use "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah? (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html)

Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq.


From the above BBC:
Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.

"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says

Now can you see where I was coming from when I said:

SAND <---- insert head

Is it coming out a little or still wedged in deep? :bugeye:

am bookmarkin this...wll get back to it alater

Light....yu seem to know a lot about Depleted Uranium, and other "tools" of war. and you seem to know about the mindsets that use them....justifying them etc etc

WHAT qualifications have you for 'informing' us all about this? I am curious

ALL my research stresses most definately that Deplted Uranium is HIGHLY dangerous, and tat, like yourself, the Penagon etc are LYING ABOUT its dangers, even to their own soldiers, many of whom are sufering from 'unknown' illness, which are terminal

Many of te people i have read speaking about tis seem qualified to do so, so tat's why i ask for YOUR credentials ad experience
'Pentagon:lies about Depleted Uraium (DU) contiinue by Christopher Bollyn
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=70&contentid=2706&page=2