Destroy a Country

Was this the young man who was riding in a car with his family when a U.S. Army Helicopter for no reason at all rocketed and machine-gunned their car killing all but the boy?

It's somewhat difficult to make such judgements based on one's experience, simply due to the size of the conflict, and the variance in the amount of actual fighting from region to region.

Where is your cousin stationed in Iraq?

From what I hear, if your are mortally wounded in Iraq, but are shipped to say Germany for treatment, and you die outside of Iraq, you are not included in the tally

I want to travel to the Hague when George W. Bush is tried for Warcrimes along with Rice and Chaney. I want to physically witness the reaction of George W. Bush when the Judge announces: George W. Bush: Guilty of Crimes against Humanity and Warcrimes..

The sad thing is, you are not being specific enough

all too common, all too common =(

I think he was in the Green Zone, not really sure he never told us due to "National Security Restrictions"

Most dirty bombs would most likely deploy something like Cesium, rather than an element like U238. And, again, Cesium has a halflife of only around 37 years, making it very radioactive.

Indeed, Padilla's supposed plans would have most likely failed, for this very reason.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/9/163246.shtml

-------
But uranium's extremely low radioactivity is harmless compared with high-radiation materials, such as cesium and cobalt isotopes used in medicine and industry that experts see as potential fuel for dirty bombs.

"I used a 20-pound brick of uranium as a doorstop in my office," American nuclear physicist Peter D. Zimmerman, of King's College in London, said to illustrate the point.

Zimmerman, co-author of an expert analysis of dirty bombs for the U.S. National Defense University, said last week's government announcement was "extremely disturbing, because you cannot make a radiological dispersal device with uranium. There is just no significant radiation hazard."

-------

So, while this does indicate that the threat that the US government said Padilla posed was not actually there, it also shows that uranium is not the major threat that you seem to think it is.

Could you please post a source regarding leukemia being linked to deployment of depleted uranium? I'd be interested to read it. I've not seen any such studies.

Dang, I only heard the one article on this, If this was the boy the article was talking about... And your right... Way too common.

Sadly, that day is not likely to come

this contigency has been dealt with

we need to take care of him from the inside

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Servicemen's_Protection_Act

ps u forgot Rummy

Ya, so I suspect that his experiences most likely reflect far heavier fighting than is going on in the majority of the country, as the insurgency is far stronger in the sunni triangle.

Thing is - if I look at my children, my brothers, my mother, and then look into my heart, I see that I do not love everyone in the world as I love them. To my children, in particular, I feel special responsibility, since I brought them here.

I do not really know how I would behave if I saw them threatened by death or starvation, in circumstances where choices were to be made. Most likely all my forum moralising about concern for strangers would vanish in a puff of smoke.

Certainly I don't share my income with the starving of Africa, bringing myself down to an equal living standard. I too am a hypocrite. Observing my behaviour coolly, I have to conclude that I don't care if they starve to death. Not enough to save as many as I could, anyway.

But somehow I can't stomach cheering on my representatives when they use my taxes to kill innocent people, often blasting little children into bleeding twitching pieces (some big enough to live on, conscious for a while under the rubble) allegedly to achieve a gain for me and my children which seems both dubious and distant, even putting morality aside.

But is it any different, or am I deluding myself ?

Is letting things happen significantly less bad than helping them happen ?

Wotcha fink ?

By Breaking the law.... Thats how.

Oh God, thats a captial offense, forgetting Rummy

I can think of two sources right off the bat, prolly won't have a link soon.

I was first made aware of this in the infamous Rolling Stone issue where Britney Spears was interviewed and said something like "I'm really into eastern religions"

the interviewer asked "like hinduism" to which Britney replied "What's that?"

Of course I stopped reading there and read the DU article.

I have also seen a military training video that dealt with emergency procedure in the event of an emergency situation with DU exposure on munitions, the precautions that were needed, and how to decontaminate the area.

I will try to find the video, because our own governments training film details the dangers far greater than a Rolling Stone article.

Most likely, any information I will prolly not be able to get until next week. Remind me in PM on monday, but you can also try finding that info on google using the things I remember

I think letting the happen is the same as helping them happen.

thats my opinion

In this country, the United States, People have a right to be against National Policy, Against a Dictator Er I mean The President, and Against unneeded and un necessary war. People also have a right to protest to the Nth degree an Illegal War.

I think your reaction is perfectly normal. All morality aside, most humans are instinctually programmed to reject such acts of violence. Most normal people are sickened by such things, when they see them for real. (and I'm not talking about movie violence. Movie violence is nothing like real violence, and your brain knows the difference.)

But, I do believe that letting bad things happen is as bad as helping them happen, if you have the capacity to stop it.

That's the reason why I can't simply look at deaths in Iraq, and say that's reason enough for us to never have gotten involved... Because people would have continued to be tortured, maimed, and murdered under Hussein's regime for as long as he remained in power. And that would have been our fault. Just like Rwanda was our fault, and Zimbabwe is our fault. Although, perhaps saying "it's our fault" is an overstatement.. but we certainly do share responsibilty for inaction in the face of such attrocities, because we do have the capacity to stop such things.

Again.. I know that many people think that any kind of analysis such as this equates to Bush loving, and I'm not a big fan of him. But, I feel that in situations of such magnitude, we cannot simply jump ship because bad things happen... because often, jumping ship would cause worse things to happen.

The idea of justifying the war is kind of silly at this point. What's done is done. Hate bush all you want, it won't make time go backwards. We're in Iraq now, and I don't think that we can simply run off. I think that would make things far worse for the people there.

Hmmmm....
So are you as guilty as I am of starving Africans to death, or are you only just eating enough to keep yourself alive and able to work to earn the cash, nearly all of which you ship out there ?

Are we both as bad as Rumsfeld?

It appears that Saddam was about to be toppled when George decided he needed something to get himself Elected President in 2004.

The Cowardly Congress could act now. George the Second has committed enought crimes as it is to be Impeached, but their masters will not let them do it.

No rush. I'm not one of those people who's going to start screaming, "Hah! You don't have a source!"

I actually did google some stuff up, but nothing scientific makes such links. Like I said before, it's pretty hard for me to believe such things, when I know the radioactive qualities of Uranium.

Generally, even significant exposure to Uranium manifests itself in kidney toxicity, which is temporary. In the past, when there have been accidents (such as a pipe break in the late 40's, which exposed a bunch of people to uranium in steam) fatalities were very rare, even in cases of very high exposure. The fact that people took massive doses of uranium poisoning, and then showed no long term effects, is what makes me doubt the basis of claims that say depleted uranium in small quantities is causing leukemia. I tend to think that some people just like such ideas because it gives them something to criticize... I can think of plenty of things to criticize about bush, without needing to resort to scientifically unsound claims.

But I'm always willing to learn more, and adjust my beliefs if new information is presented to me.

Interesting isn't it... North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Angola, The Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire) all have Dictators I consider worst than Saddam. Saddam was a moderate compaired to these dictators. Yet George, in order to get elected President in 2004, needed a soft target that had no chance of defeating us, so he attacked helpless Iraq and won the election.

Er,

One problem.

Saddam had no weapons of Mass Destruction.... He was being totally honest with the UN weapons inspectors. This was one time he DID NOT lie.

George, however, needed a war to get elected so he attacked defenseless Iraq.

And Thus began the first of many War Crimes of George W. Bush.

No wonder George is keeping us out of the World Court, He would be the first defendant charged if we were in.

"Remember that America is against an international court. People like president Bush know that many countries in the world would like to try him for his war crimes."

I think that most people would oppose something like an international court, if they stopped to consider the implications.

Mainly, as an American citizen, I have some control over my own government. We have a constitution that protects my rights. I have a say in who runs our government.

I have no such input in regard to other countries. I would never want some other country to be able to prosecute me under laws that I had no say in, or in an environment where my constitutional rights are not protected.

Lots of places around the world outlaw things that Americans take for granted, like being able to say what you want. I don't really want those people deciding what's legal or illegal in regards to me.

If Bush has committed war crimes, then he has committed crimes under the law of the United States, by breaking treaties that we have signed. Therefore, we could prosecute him under our own system of law (and indeed, would be obligated to). We don't need an international court for such things.

EDIT: also, as a reminder.. Clinton also opposed the international court. Pretty much for the reasons I outlined.

guilty =(