OSDev.org

It's your problem.


pretty funny,because you didn't like what he says.
didn't you look at the pictures he shows,
or you only see what you like?


This link from human rights watch.(american organization).
and this confirm,you only see what you like.


that page gives you numbers and dates,
this is what happened actully.


they might but the are illegal,take a look
Also thiswould gives you a clear idea


if any Arabic country used this cluster bombs against Israel,and killed
some of its children,I'm sure America and other countries,would start a war
against that Arabic country,
so it double standards,America never said any thing about using Israel
this bombs against children.
i'm not just talking about Israel,US used cluster and nuclear bombs,
explain this to me...


And how many Muslims and Arabs are arrested after 9/11?
I posted thisbefore

@Solar:
the picture is you cannot say a word,
because you only see what you like,
After all ,is the nuclear bombs against Iraq and Afghanistan is a "Bullshit"?
or it's a fact?
is the Israelian cluster bombs,which was dropped aginst Lebanon children is "Bullshit"?
or it's a fact?

or...I know you only see what you like,America is always right,and Israel is
always right,and I'm just facking all of this links and facts.

I almost forgot,Israel never ever had a nuclear bombs,made with the help of US.

this is pathetic.

Please let's not go there...

Ok, I didn't see the later pages.

but... the pictures there didn't look like they came from a nuclear bomb.

by the way, did you see the rest of his site? oh dear...

I'm not saying we're perfect, economically there's a ways to go in terms of equalizing things. But generally there's a very wide acceptance in terms of rights and protections. There might be intolerant people here as I'm sure there are in any culture, but accepting their rights and views is just as much a part of tolerance.

As I said, I won't open that can of worms. That'd be worth a thread of its own...

This all is so very emotional, founded on ones deepest beliefs and concerning life and death - and all is automatically instantly debated "near the edge of flamewar". I am also personally deeply affected, still I'd like to add another perspective here:

Think we are mainly talking around the topic "Truth, moral and whos right to intervene, and the price of that all".

What I had to learn: individuals have this logic of ethics.
A mysterium of human kind seems that letting 'em gather into organizations, passing a given size, these organizations tend to no longer being affected of this "ethics of indivicuals" and start to follow roles of a totally different "group ethic" or say "their own logic".

"States behave like immoral monsters" - you know this saying?

Even in a democracy, given a definite majority of the people do want "X" (end the war, stop using nuclear power plants, stop having/using cluster bombs etc.) - the government / decision makers will still tend to ignore this and not do "X" as long as it's inner "logic" says so.

I think we all here are persons and we argue based on our ethics. But I always try to keep in mind, that organizations follow completely different rules. To judge them means to enter another layer of thinking. And doing so, one could easily become cynical - esp. when it boils down to watch and evaluate the daily events / desasters.

We should not forget, that even we few individuals still have a slightly/drastically different live-background - watch 01000101 Solar and e.g. abuashraf.
So when I read this thread, I am really impressed by almost everyone here holding tight, try to not cross the edge of "flamewar".
(must have said this here)

Sorry?



BS. You (and some of your sources, apparently) have no grasp (among other things) of what a "nuclear bomb" is and what isn't, and you don't care to take a step back and update your background knowledge. That's why I won't discuss this subject any further with you.

@abuashraf @Solar




That were no "chemical" nor "nuclear" bombs.

You eventually are confused by this:
US Army is (still) using conventional armor piercing warheads made from depleted uranium.
The yellow press insanely jumped aboard and confused that with nuclear bombs, or some people confused them with "dirty atomic bombs".

Short: That material is an oddment from enriching uranium ore to get civil- or weapon-grade uranium - the waste of that process is this only very very slightly radioactive depleted uranium. And it has some wonderful properties for warheards: extremely hard and also dense (->heavy) material. One can make relatively small warheads, which still have relatively good "effect", compared to e.g. titanium sheeted or hardened steel bombs. One can get the same military "effect" by simply using a bit larger / heavier warheads e.g. made of hardened steel. But that sacrifices some military parameters like range, payload and logistics etc... of the weapon carrier systems (aircrafts, tanks...)

The huge side effect (which was long denied and played down by official sides) is: during the impact that uranium is partially burning into uranium oxygen (a powdery stuff), and by the explosion it gets widely spread/distributed around the impact site.
Alas it is highly toxic and cancerogen. So nowadays in Iraq people are told to NOT GET CLOSE TO DESTROYED VEHICLES. But tell that to adventurous kids, who are eager to play war with a "real tank". (Esp. when these kids already have been traumatized by the war - what are people doing against traumata: Yes! They replay hurting events again and again, until they found a way to live with it.) Alot of people suffering from this now. The surrounding soil also is rendered useless, (which range and direction? Is locally depending on wind and weather at impact time). Tell that farmers, who barely survive and so very need every inch of their ground to feed their family. And who knows what

So many many small areas of Iraq are contaminated by this post-odem of war.
And since it's a plain chemical substance, it won't disappear that easily. It mainly slowly diffuses and thins down.

I thought that this knowledge already belonged to general knowledge.

To come back to our thread:
I indeed can understand US Militarys trying to keep that "issue" down as long as possible. They have a huge stock of that weapons and where to put 'em if not to destroy enemy tanks! Simply dismantle and wreck them? Who is paying for that? Who is refilling their magazines with the "more uneffective" warheads? And the time in between? All the long term logistic treaties with companies are to be held! etc. etc. So from their perspective this all is logical. US Army still nowadays are using that weapon systems.

Good luck for the Afghani is, that they have no regular army, so little tanks to be pierced, and the few cave-hideouts that get "encountered" by bunker piercing warheads - well they are in mountain areas, where little agriculture is done...
So whoever will finally win that war, at least the land will not be wasted for decades...

Is that view cynical? I bet a bit it is indeed...

The alternative to DU penetrators is not "hardened steel", but tungsten, which has similar properties (denseness, hardness) to a somewhat lesser extent, without the side effects.

And I don't think the US army would refrain from using DU even if they could - the military benefits of that ammunition are too great, especially as chances of the US army ever using that ammo on their own soil are non-existent.

Calling them "chemical weapons" is ridiculous. A bullet is made of lead, which is also poisonous - that doesn't make it a chemical weapon either.

I wouldn't be so sure, I think the major thing blocking the dismantling of DU munitions is simply the lack of concrete data saying for certain that they're unsafe. Keep in mind some of the people potentially effected and in direct contact with all the direct after effects of DU munitions are in fact US soldiers themselves(Gulf War syndrome). So I wouldn't downplay the lack of US concern simply because they don't have to deal with the impact of it.

At any rate this is more an issue of not having enough long term data to know the possible effects of prolonged exposure to these materials than any intention to create something with lingering impacts, it's happened before (Agent orange, etc.) and it'll probably happen again in the future. If it's found to be conclusively toxic I'm pretty sure it'll be removed from use, as there are alternatives. There's a lot of ongoing studies at an international level to determine this. Still I'd agree it's better to just retool and remove it from the US arsenal given the disposal criteria for DU, which isn't met just by leaving it lying around after a war.

why are you guys getting all upset
its just a war jeez

get a tank shoot some arabs or something go hog wild

This sounds familiar, somewhat akin to the US position on climate protection...

I don't know what you would consider "conclusive" evidence.

"Depleted" uranium still contains at least half the original amount of U-235, which is a strong alpha emitter. Alpha radiation is next to harmless outside your body, as even your clothing is enough to block it. But inhaled / ingested, as would happen with the uranium compounds left behind after a DU round hit its target, alpha radiation is the most harmful of it all. Not speaking of the high chemical toxidity of uranium.

Take this page on uranium for starters, made by someone who's very much unafraid to handle even more exotic elements. Note what he says about the radioactivity of his DU samples, and the toxidity of e.g. uranium oxide.

You might also start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_trioxide and follow the links under "related compounds" to find the many entries that read "highly toxic".

DU ammo does result in the most toxic remains on a modern battlefield, short of chemical weapons. It's still used because it makes such an exellent killing device.

I think TverrBjelke made the nuclear bomb stuff very clear...so I won't go there
unless you want to.

some of my sources where American such as human rights watch,CNN...
but at least I did gave you my sources,while you didn't


even Al qaeda won't say so...
source please?
or you only have some blind believes...

Part of it, to my understanding is proving that through accidental or casual contact with it that it's possible to receive significant amounts of said toxins, which is where the stopping point has been. The UN has a page full of studies on the topic:
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/index.html

That's the sticking point, regarding it in terms of legislation against it. The actual environmental toxicity of the munitions hasn't been proven to be that high. Look once again I agree with you that basically these standards aren't high enough, but what I'm also trying to explain is the difficulty and opposition that's being encountered to actually removing it from service here. Likewise you can compare our nation as a whole to the current administration and it's abyssal approval rating all you want there, most people in the U.S actually believe in climate change and that we need to limit emissions and find alternate sources of energy to help curb the output of greenhouse gases. A lot of this stuff is unpopular domestically, and I'd imagine the upcoming elections will demonstrate this. If it wasn't for the fact that **** Cheney is even worse than G.W he probably would have been impeached by now, I'm not sure how closely you follow US politics but there is ongoing criminal prosecution targeted at a lot of administration here. I'm sure a lot of congressional figures are regretting ever passing the Patriot Act as well at this point.

Depleted Uranium munitions are not "nuclear bombs".

Moron.



Please specify for what you'd like sources.



You wouldn't recognize a rethoric exageration if hit about the head with one, would you?

Quoting / translating from the German Strafgesetzbuch (criminal code):



Just one example, there are many similar paragraphs on instigation, defamation, libel, etc.

--

What's my point?

What I sorely miss is an open willingness of the muslim world at large to openly and steadfastedly dissociate from those who preach hatred, violence and "holy war" (which, by generally agreed-upon Koran science, is a complete misinterpretation of what "Jihad" actually means).

Those who tell those poor devils that they'd go to heaven if they blow themselves up in a crowd or in front of a hotel.

Those who spread leaflets about a couple of caricatures in a backwater Danish newspaper, equip the resulting mob with Danish flags to burn and happily direct them to the Danish embassy.

Those who preach that everyone not believing in Mohammed and Allah is a second-rate human at best. (Hell, even the christian-catholic church, which is pretty hardcore in my book, stopped preaching that BS about non-christians automatically going to hell generations ago.)

Do you get it?

The problem of the Arab / muslim world is not, or at the very least not only, the "bad aggressor", whether that's Israel or the USA or both in their book I don't care. A big part of the problem is sitting right in the middle of their society, and they are apparently too afraid or too much in agreement with the radicals to root them up and quieten them. As long as such radicals are harbored and supported, they are a threat that others cannot ignore, because they're flying planes into skyscrapers and plant bombs in commuter trains, killing civilians who have nothing to do with the whole thing.