Should the use of depleted uranium weapons be prohibited?

1. 61

   peterxdunnposted 14 years ago

   There is now clear evidence (mainly from Iraq) that the radioactive residues left by the use of depleted uranium weapons (such as the armour piercing rounds fired by the American Abrahms main battle tank) cause horrendous birth defects among children born to parents that have been exposed to those residues.
   
   I have seen the pictures of these poor little children and I will not, soon, forget them.
   
   It is bad enough that children should suffer in times of war.
   
   That children yet to be born can now be maimed and disfigured - indirectly - whilst still in the womb is simply unacceptable.
   
   No right thinking person could disagree with the statement above.
   
   Can you? Can you justify the use of such weapons?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I think one can justify anything. We'll see what happens when our soldiers start having health issues as a result of inhaling the radioactive dust from the desert. This will be this generation's "agent orange" with the VA denying the health issues are a result of the depleted uranium shells and not covering the health problems.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Prohibited by whom ?  AS far as I am aware depleted Uranium weapons are only used by the US.  Of course I may be wrong.
      
      I see the same was said of landmines, and backed with a huge campaign, but they are still used everywhere. Of course I amy be wrong on that too.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         peterxdunnposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         We (the Brits) used depleted uranium (DU) rounds in Iraq too.
         
         Some countries have stopped using mines - especially the anti-personnel variety. America - however -  has not signed up to the relevant treaty.
         
         Prohibition of DU ordinance would need to be internationally ratified and policed under the auspices of the UN and Geneva Convention.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Oh the UN that the US controls and the Geneva Convention that the US ignores - sorry to sound irritated but I am still p*ssed off with Blair for selling us out, and his own morals, to the US.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               peterxdunnposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I know what you mean. I watched some of the Liberty (Bell) Medal award ceremony with Blair in obsequious attendance: I nearly puked.
               
               As for the Un and Geneva Convention: I do realize that all we might get would be statements of intent - that the US would then veto - but even this small step would mean something: especially to right thinking, disaffected Americans.

               replyreport
   3. 52

      Rog47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      There is no evidence, let alone clear evidence.  There is substantial propaganda campaign that was begun by Saddam Hussein that has been carried on, mainly on the internet, especially in videos by liars like Douglas Lind Rokke, Leuren K Moret, Rosalie Bertell, Asaf Durakovic and Christopher Busby - Busby was caught in another lie just recently in Japan http://tinyurl.com/8yer3oj

      replyreport
2. 59

   Evan G Rogersposted 14 years ago

   war and aggression should be prohibited.
   
   ... but I'm just a whacky libertarian...

   replyreport
   1. 61

      peterxdunnposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      ...agreed.

      replyreport