This is something which is really annoying me a lot.�� I see a lot of websites out there which do a very good job of making it seem like opposition to Bush’s war-mongering and war in general and the use of depleted uranium in munitions are the same issue.�� They seem to indicate that opposing depleted uranium is part of the effort to oppose the war in Iraq and that depleted uranium rounds are part-and-parcel of the whole plan Bush has for the Middle East and the world.� These pages also indicate that somehow if the European Union enacts anti-depleted uranium policies that this will somehow indicate disapproval of the war in Iraq and other American policies.�� There also is an undertone that those in Europe who would use DU weapons, such as Brittan and France are somehow part of the problem.
Well let me just go on the record here about something:
I do not support President Bush’s policies in general and I will be happy to see him leave office.� I supported and continue to support military action in Afghanistan, because the Taliban was closely allied with Al Queda and actively protected and aided Bin Laden and others who were directly involved in major terrorist attacks. � However, I have been less than satisfied with the way the war in Afghanistan has been handled and the general policy in that area.
I never supported the war in Iraq.� I always thought it was, at best, unnecessary. � Was Saddam Husein a tyrannical and murderous dictator?� Yes, but there are others in the region and certainly other countries which are a much greater threat to stability and peace (Iran, Syria, North Korea,� Sudan).� We cannot just go around invading and overthrowing every country that has an unjust government or we’d always be at war.� Iraq posed, at most, a very minimal danger to stability because Saddam’s army had been all but destroyed in the first Gulf War.� Going to Iraq was a detraction from the real problems internationally; it cost many lives and a great deal of money; it only served to worsen the stability in the region and alienate potential allies. � The situation in Iraq is now a mess which it will be impossible to get out of without either costing a great deal more in terms of lives and money or causing a great deal more trouble by causing the country to loose any semblance of control it may have and possibly become a province of Iran.
In addition to not approving of the war in Iraq and how it has been handled, I take great issue with Bush’s policies which have lead to easing of protections of basic civil liberties in the United States as well as the administrations general tendency to foster dislike of America abroad and to alienate the United States from allies. � If there is one thing I am most angry at Bush for it is how he destroyed the unity that existed after 9/11.� After the attacks, the whole country and the whole world was more united than I can ever remember seeing. � Liberals and conservatives put aside their differences and countries around the world were in general agreement on one thing:� The attacks were absolutely unjustified and atrocious and Al Queda needed to be destroyed.� That single-minded unity in the US and with our allies was completely destroyed when Bush extended his “war on terror” to realms which had little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism.
Why am I saying this:
Because despite my own political views on the matter I see no reason why this has anything to do with the toxicity of depleted uranium.� Depleted uranium was, of course, in use long before George W. Bush was elected president and it has been used in conflicts in many places other than Iraq.� Many of these conflicts have been entirely justified or have been defensive actions which were not initiated by an overzealous president looking to settle a personal score.� And even it’s use in Iraq is simply incidental and has nothing to do with the conflict in general.� Depleted uranium rounds are used in Iraq because they work well and they are part of the general munitions of the US and British military. � The same could be said of lead bullets, tungsten rounds and numerous other items which are not inherently “bad” but can be used for justified or unjustified actions.
In any case, as I’ve written before, if anything, I think the anti-DU movement is on the ethically wrong side of things because drawing attention to this non-issue only serves to divert attention from the legitimate plight of those in war torn countries. � Furthermore, focusing on such a scientifically invalid and disprovable issue tends to destroy the credibility of any who use it as the justification behind a given agenda.� And depleted uranium is certainly not a “nuclear weapon.”
Despite my opposition to the war in Iraq, I still have no doubt which side I want to succeed. � The US and British troops may not have been sent there for the right reasons to begin with, but I still would rather see the Iraqi insurgents and the Islamic extremists cut down and the coalition troops go home with as little casualties as possible.� Hence, I favor the use of the most effective armor and weaponry avaliable, and this includes depleted uranium. �� But depleted uranium, one must remember, is just one technology in the war in Iraq and elsewhere.
Does opposition to the war in Iraq mean opposition to other materials and technologies which are used as part of the operation? � If so, then why not protest Kevlar or GPS or night vision? � Why not protest munitions and offensive weapons that make use of aluminum, tungsten, lead, steel or carbon fiber? � Why not? � Because any idiot can see that GPS has nothing to do with the war as a whole and is just a technology which is employed by the military in all operations as well as the civilian sector in numerous capacities.� The same is true of depleted uranium.
And oh yes, to remind everyone:� It’s chemically toxic, but only about as much as lead.� It doesn’t have any appreciable radiological toxicity except when inhaled, and even then it’s overall damage to the respiratory system is relatively modest, especially when compared to other materials like beryllium or numerous other metals used in military and aerospace applications. � And it has been tested and studied for a long time.� This is well established scientific fact.�� Depleted uranium is no more dangerous or harmful than numerous other common materials used by the military and in civilian applications.
This entry was posted on Monday, December 31st, 2007 at 10:02 am and is filed under Bad Science, Depleted Cranium, Enviornment, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions