Quote from: Solar on May 14, 2015, 05:16:26 PM
Yeah, about as deadly as lead poisoning which leads to death. But then, isn't that the purpose of lead bullets, to kill? 

Damn, we're horrible on human rights!

What's next?  We're pro-slavery because AGW is a scam?

Quote from: steve folkster on May 14, 2015, 01:46:55 PM
I made no such statements.

I guess what I am asking, is what human rights abuses, if any, do you think America commits?


If you would put down that bong your sucking on maybe you would remember.

Quote from: Solar on May 14, 2015, 05:16:26 PM
Yeah, about as deadly as lead poisoning which leads to death. But then, isn't that the purpose of lead bullets, to kill? 

Damn, we're horrible on human rights!

We are being criticized for our cruel and unusual punishment  people sentenced to death. We are having a problem with lethal injections and the gas chamber and "sparky" are not good. We have a solution. Thank you Kim. We can use anti-aircraft guns. It is quick and painless. 

Quote from: supsalemgr on May 14, 2015, 07:02:46 PM
We are being criticized for our cruel and unusual punishment  people sentenced to death. We are having a problem with lethal injections and the gas chamber and "sparky" are not good. We have a solution. Thank you Kim. We can use anti-aircraft guns. It is quick and painless. 

    Excellent point, costly, but effective.

Let's see... we like hurting people so let's use the densest armor (U-238 depleted 98%... not U-235 which is 6-times more radioactive than U-238) so we can protect people.

Gods, I hate the left.

Quote from: kit saginaw on May 14, 2015, 08:16:55 PM
Let's see... we like hurting people so let's use the densest armor (U-238 depleted 98%... not U-235 which is 6-times more radioactive than U-238) so we can protect people.

Gods, I hate the left.

Look at it this way, taxed was out of a chew toy.

Quote from: walkstall on May 14, 2015, 09:26:07 PM
Look at it this way, taxed was out of a chew toy.

No wonder he's always gassy...

Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 14, 2015, 10:52:13 PM
No wonder he's always gassy...

My understanding that is not for chew toys.   

Quote from: kit saginaw on May 14, 2015, 08:16:55 PM
Let's see... we like hurting people so let's use the densest armor (U-238 depleted 98%... not U-235 which is 6-times more radioactive than U-238) so we can protect people.

Gods, I hate the left.

It's the same reasoning behind the libs disdain of nuclear energy, and why they would rather murder half a billion birds every year with giant wind driven Cuisinarts, why murdering the unborn is considered women' right that trumps that of the father, why giving special rights to a fringe group of 2% society deems destructive to the institution with an effect of destroying millenia' of proven a structure based on Gods law.

Because they have yet to grasp the concept of critical thinking. They see everything through the prism of emotion and bypass ever having to ask the question "Why, or How" How does this effect society, why would anyone want to change society so drastically?

Sad isn't it?

You guys are an absolute joke.
Go actually read what you all have written and it is little more to a preaching to each others quires.

I am not on the left.  Yet this is the number one criticism you have in response to mounting evidence that depleted uranium not only causes cancer, but also certainly causes birth defects.  It has already been studied that there are higher rates ten fold in birth defects by troops who have returned home and had children.  I posted 50 articles to this end, additional newspaper articles, the US air force, the fact that a report was leaked that showed 98 percent statistical evidence that  DU increased the risk of cancer in soldiers, civilians and caused major damage to reproductive rights.
Iraqi children have seen rates of cancer go up by over 50 times.  Google the pictures.
Feel free to be skeptical.  But in this case that's about on par with being skeptical that cigs cause cancer.
DU has been condmeed by virtually the entire world as chemical weapon and banned mode of war.

It seems that the mere mention that US can commit a human rights abuse is somehow a thought that provokes complete anger here. 
One can only conclude that the US is incapable, in the eyes of people here, of committing a human rights abuse.   If that is the case, that is a deeply totalitarian viewpoint and one held by Soviet commissars.
You know what a Soviet commissar would say when Russian dissidents accused them of human rights abuses in eastern Europe?  He would call them Anti-Soviet.
The viewpoint here mirrors that of dictators mindset.

I came on the site about as respectfully as a person can.  Specifically mentioned I want to learn.  SO far I have learned that the argument tactics here are merely to refute an argument by calling someone a leftist, whether or not they are one.
That's pathetic and embarrassing.

I say to Solar, we gave Sadaam Hussein chemical and biological weapons before, during and after he was using them to gas Kurdish children.

His response?  "How are we responsible for what people do with weapons after we give them to them?"
A purely ignorant response.  For starters, you don't block the united nations from imposing sanctions for the crimes, as we did.  But more then that, you don't continue to supply a brutal tyrant with weapons when you know that he is using them to gas people in stark violation of international law. 
Under that theory, someone who sells a terrorist a bomb to say bomb Washington, is innocent, because they are not responsible for what the terrorist does with the bomb,  Yeah, Solar you are worth taking seriously. Ha, not.

Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 07:00:09 AM
You guys are an absolute joke.
Go actually read what you all have written and it is little more to a preaching to each others quires.

I am not on the left.  Yet this is the number one criticism you have in response to mounting evidence that depleted uranium not only causes cancer, but also certainly causes birth defects.  It has already been studied that there are higher rates ten fold in birth defects by troops who have returned home and had children.  I posted 50 articles to this end, additional newspaper articles, the US air force, the fact that a report was leaked that showed 98 percent statistical evidence that  DU increased the risk of cancer in soldiers, civilians and caused major damage to reproductive rights.

Settle down. It's not our fault you have failed to prove your point beyond "It Is Claimed" by our enemies, that that don't have the ability to stop our weaponry, that is must cause cancer.
Like I said before, it very well may cause cancer but it has yet to be proven.

QuoteIraqi children have seen rates of cancer go up by over 50 times.  Google the pictures.
Feel free to be skeptical.  But in this case that's about on par with being skeptical that cigs cause cancer.
DU has been condmeed by virtually the entire world as chemical weapon and banned mode of war.

Saddam buried chem weapons all throughout Iraq, yet somehow it was DU causation to your claim?
You do realize just how emotional of a response that was, right?

QuoteIt seems that the mere mention that US can commit a human rights abuse is somehow a thought that provokes complete anger here.

Have you ever stopped to think about the fact this is war?
In war, you kill the enemy where you can, when the enemy hides among the innocent, you have collateral damage and innocent die. But no, this war was fought along PC rules of engagement, in turn costing the lives of American soldiers instead.
Let me be blunt. Fuck That Shit! It's war, level the God damned place and make an example of our enemies. DU? Too damn bad, it's a side effect of war, a war they should be grateful a family of PC Presidents fought, where preserving every Mosque for fear of offending, over the life of our own.

Get over yourself!

QuoteOne can only conclude that the US is incapable, in the eyes of people here, of committing a human rights abuse.   If that is the case, that is a deeply totalitarian viewpoint and one held by Soviet commissars.
You know what a Soviet commissar would say when Russian dissidents accused them of human rights abuses in eastern Europe?  He would call them Anti-Soviet.
The viewpoint here mirrors that of dictators mindset.

Slaughtering Jews in WWII was a human rights violation, using a compound suspected of causing cancer does not rise to the level of abuse.
Your emotional appeals fall on deaf ears, which is why you come off sounding like a lib.

QuoteI came on the site about as respectfully as a person can.  Specifically mentioned I want to learn.  SO far I have learned that the argument tactics here are merely to refute an argument by calling someone a leftist, whether or not they are one.
That's pathetic and embarrassing.

Instead of using critical though, you come off as an emotional school girl chastising adults for not seeing it through your innocent eyes.

QuoteI say to Solar, we gave Sadaam Hussein chemical and biological weapons before, during and after he was using them to gas Kurdish children.

Not remembering the timeline, but if what you say is correct, then yeah, Bush should have been held responsible. To this day I don't forgive him for lying to the Kurds, where he told them to fight, we had their back, only to abandon them in their time of need.
You won't find an Bush apologist in me, but when we go to war, it should be fought as the war to end all wars.
It was not, and for this I hold them responsible. Now do you get where I come from, what ground I stand upon?

QuoteHis response?  "How are we responsible for what people do with weapons after we give them to them?"
A purely ignorant response.  For starters, you don't block the united nations from imposing sanctions for the crimes, as we did.  But more then that, you don't continue to supply a brutal tyrant with weapons when you know that he is using them to gas people in stark violation of international law. 
Under that theory, someone who sells a terrorist a bomb to say bomb Washington, is innocent, because they are not responsible for what the terrorist does with the bomb,  Yeah, Solar you are worth taking seriously. Ha, not.

He's dead. Your point?

You wrote absolutely nothing there worth really responding too.
I dont have to prove the cancer/birth defect link because intelligent scholars have already proved it overwhelmingly.  Its your business whether to avoid it.  Its also your business to ignore the US air force as well who has reported the same thing.

The chemical weapons in Iraq buried overwhelmingly came from the US, FYI, so even if you think that's the cause, which it clearly is making soldiers sick as well, then that would still make us culpable.
The chemical attacks supported by the US in Iraq had nothing to do with Bush.  That was under Reagan.  Bush did support Sadaam as well afterwords but the weight of the blood falls on Reagan, Rumsefeld etc.  It also had nothing to do with just republicans.  It was bi-partisan support. 
Nobody is saying to fight a war with kid gloves.  But there is a big difference between killing/maiming unborn children.  There is a big difference between giving Iraq chemical weapons to be used on Kurds of whom we are not at war with.  There is also a big difference between pummeling civilian areas rather then fighting Iraqi troops.  The civilians in Iraq are the victims if Sadaam(just as they were a victim when we were supporting him for a decade).
I
You are again basically repeating a terrorist mantra.  I am assuming you would be consistent with your logic and thus you would accept a more terrorism on US shores since you would also great them the right to fight war as severely as they want.

Your ineptitude on knowledge of foreign policy is funny to me.  You are clearly out of your element here and I am thinking that when I begin to read your domestic criticisms you will prove to be out of your element as well.

Nice to see you at least retreated from your claims  that we are not responsible for what people do with weapons after we give them to him.  But most importantly, you are out of your element in foreign policy as you clearly just don't know much.

For example, explain to me US policy in East Timor?

Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 07:42:58 AM
You wrote absolutely nothing there worth really responding too.
I dont have to prove the cancer/birth defect link because intelligent scholars have already proved it overwhelmingly.  Its your business whether to avoid it.  Its also your business to ignore the US air force as well who has reported the same thing.

The chemical weapons in Iraq buried overwhelmingly came from the US, FYI, so even if you think that's the cause, which it clearly is making soldiers sick as well, then that would still make us culpable.
The chemical attacks supported by the US in Iraq had nothing to do with Bush.  That was under Reagan.  Bush did support Sadaam as well afterwords but the weight of the blood falls on Reagan, Rumsefeld etc.  It also had nothing to do with just republicans.  It was bi-partisan support. 
Nobody is saying to fight a war with kid gloves.  But there is a big difference between killing/maiming unborn children.  There is a big difference between giving Iraq chemical weapons to be used on Kurds of whom we are not at war with.  There is also a big difference between pummeling civilian areas rather then fighting Iraqi troops.  The civilians in Iraq are the victims if Sadaam(just as they were a victim when we were supporting him for a decade).
I
You are again basically repeating a terrorist mantra.  I am assuming you would be consistent with your logic and thus you would accept a more terrorism on US shores since you would also great them the right to fight war as severely as they want.

Your ineptitude on knowledge of foreign policy is funny to me.  You are clearly out of your element here and I am thinking that when I begin to read your domestic criticisms you will prove to be out of your element as well.

Nice to see you at least retreated from your claims  that we are not responsible for what people do with weapons after we give them to him.  But most importantly, you are out of your element in foreign policy as you clearly just don't know much.

For example, explain to me US policy in East Timor?

East Timor???  A diver's mecca...... if you speak Portuguese......   

Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 07:42:58 AM
You wrote absolutely nothing there worth really responding too.
I dont have to prove the cancer/birth defect link because intelligent scholars have already proved it overwhelmingly.  Its your business whether to avoid it.  Its also your business to ignore the US air force as well who has reported the same thing.

Then you shouldn't have any problem posting a single link proving your claim, Right?
So post it, lets see this incontrovertible proof.
Seriously, one single link, not your 50 nonsense BS, but one. Can you do that?

The chemical weapons in Iraq buried overwhelmingly came from the US, FYI, so even if you think that's the cause, which it clearly is making soldiers sick as well, then that would still make us culpable.
We didn't sell him chemical weapons, we, along with the rest of the world supplied him with chemicals.
Get you facts straight!

QuoteThe chemical attacks supported by the US in Iraq had nothing to do with Bush.  That was under Reagan.  Bush did support Sadaam as well afterwords but the weight of the blood falls on Reagan, Rumsefeld etc.  It also had nothing to do with just republicans.  It was bi-partisan support.

All started by the idiot Carter. But you didn't know that, because you only know what your profs want you to know.
Point is, at that time, Iran was taken over by radicals and Saddam was the least radical of all the animals in the M/E, so he became an ally. Both Iran and Iraq were slaughtering Kurds, it wasn't just one sided.

QuoteNobody is saying to fight a war with kid gloves.  But there is a big difference between killing/maiming unborn children.  There is a big difference between giving Iraq chemical weapons to be used on Kurds of whom we are not at war with.  There is also a big difference between pummeling civilian areas rather then fighting Iraqi troops.  The civilians in Iraq are the victims if Sadaam(just as they were a victim when we were supporting him for a decade).

Just something for you to ponder. Had we gone in, takeover Iraq, forced them to accept Christianity at the point of a gun. What do you think Iraq would be like today?
Keep in mind, this culture only respects power at the end of a sword.

QuoteYou are again basically repeating a terrorist mantra.  I am assuming you would be consistent with your logic and thus you would accept a more terrorism on US shores since you would also great them the right to fight war as severely as they want.

Your ineptitude on knowledge of foreign policy is funny to me.  You are clearly out of your element here and I am thinking that when I begin to read your domestic criticisms you will prove to be out of your element as well.

Son, I remember more first hand than you've been programmed by your profs in school.

QuoteNice to see you at least retreated from your claims  that we are not responsible for what people do with weapons after we give them to him.  But most importantly, you are out of your element in foreign policy as you clearly just don't know much.

I retreated on nothing, it was you making assumptions in creating false conclusions.

QuoteFor example, explain to me US policy in East Timor?

So was that last weeks Geopolitical lesson?
I should care more about a country smaller than the state of Main, over the outcome of Venezeula' experiment with communism, or open relations with Cuba, why?
Son, what you know about the world is based on opinions of others forming a conclusion destined by those with an agenda.
I, on the other hand have lived what you see as history. This is not a road you want to venture down.

On the East Timor point, I will take that as you don't know what happened there.

For your edification, a US supported Indonesian invasion of East Timor killed 200,000 out of the 900,000 people who lived there in atrocities described as genocide.  Women's babies were ripped out of their stomach, men were sterilized, etc.  It went on for over 20 years through various administrations.  It ended in 1999.  You know nothing about it.

Carter was a terrible President, something I think we agree on.  However, Carter had absolutely nothing to do with beginning relations with Sadaam.  He may have if he stayed in power, but we simply don't know.  The relations with Sadaam began in 1982 and picked up speed in 1984 when Donald Rumsfeld was sent to meet with the dictator.  The US then proceeded to begin to arm Iraq, take them of the US list of sates sponsoring terrorism etc.  Iran never used chemical weapons during either the Iran-Iraq war, or their brutal treatment of the Kurds.  Iraq on the other hand did use weapons against both the Kurds and Iranians.  The Iranians repeatedly brought this issue to the UN to sanction Iraq for obvious violations of International law, and the US repeatedly vetoed the resolutions. 

You brought the brutal treatment of Iranians against the Kurds?  A 5 year old could detect this is irrelevant.  Is it your premise that US crimes against Kurds by supporting chemical attacks against them is obviated because also treated them poorly?  If you get picked up for murder would you defend yourself on the grounds that other people to have committed murder?

By the way, Iran did have a democratic government in 1953.  It was overthrown by a British-US CIA coup that installed the Shah who for 25 years killed tens of thousands of Iranian political prisoners with the most brutal types of torture you can imagine.  Had the US not overthrown Iranian democracy, there would be no Islamic state right now.

You asked what would happen if the US forced Iraq to covernt to Christianity.  Why you asked this I have absolutely no clue.  I presume what would happen is the same that happened to Native Americans, which is they were extinct from the planet.

You made a statement that Iraq only understands force.  This is completely inconsistent with scholarship, CIA assessments, etc.  All of the aforementioned conclude and in fact predicted that the 2003 invasion of Iraq would create exactly what it did in Iraq.



Abstract
Iraq is suffering from depleted uranium (DU) pollution in many regions and the effects of this may harm public health through poisoning and increased incidence of various cancers and birth defects. DU is a known carcinogenic agent. About 1200 tonnes of ammunition were dropped on Iraq during the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003. As a result, contamination occurred in more than 350 sites in Iraq. Currently, Iraqis are facing about 140,000 cases of cancer, with 7000 to 8000 new ones registered  each year. In Baghdad cancer incidences per 100,000 population have increased, just as they have also increased in Basra. The overall incidence of breast and lung cancer , Leukaemia and Lymphoma, has doubled, even tripled. The situation in Mosul city is similar to other regions. Before the Gulf Wars Mosul had a higher rate of cancer, but the rate of cancer has further increased since the Gulf Wars.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13623699.2013.765173#.VVYTfsvjhoI

Depleted uranium and cancer in Danish Balkan veterans deployed 1992–2001
HH Storm, HO Jørgensen, AMT Kejs... - ... Journal of Cancer, 2006 - Elsevier
... 8 cases], France [5 cases], The Netherlands [2 cases], Denmark [2 cases] were linked to the use
of depleted uranium (DU) enforced ... This is a 30% increase in risk. ... by DU was used, as well as
being in agreement with studies of workers with decades of exposure to uranium. ...
Cited by 38 Related articles All 6 versions Cite SaveSaved


http://truthalerts.com/iraqi-birth-defects-worse-than-hiroshima/


That's now56 citations.  Most recent research which I didn't even read yet, said that cancner rate in Iraq has gone up 4000% with 14..7 out of every 100 children born with birth defects.  Especailly in Fallujah where heavy use of white phorpohours and DU were found.

Is it possible that DU isn't the cause?  Absolutely.  But the research seems pretty heavy that it plays a role.  Perhaps we shouldn't use till we know huh?

I don't care how old you are.  Someone who has seen as much as you should not be alleging I get my views from Proffessors without a shred of evidence.  I get my views from my own research.  Such childish debate tactics are right in line with you calling me a leftist, a lib or whatever slander is your choice for the moment.

Such evasive debate tactits are merely confirmation of your inability to discuss the issues.  As I said you are out of your league here.