US forces' use of depleted uranium weapons is 'illegal'

[Crimson and Clover]

By Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor

BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium
(DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a
United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as
illegal weapons of mass destruction.

DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the
soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians,
leading to birth defects in children.

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted
uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at
Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked
by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war
depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war
crime'.

Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was
about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we
are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added:
'Such double-standards are repellent.'

The latest use of DU in the current conflict came on Friday when
an American A10 tankbuster plane fired a DU shell, killing one
British soldier and injuring three others in a 'friendly fire'
incident.

According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws
which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations;
the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four
Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of
1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly
forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary
suffering'. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from
unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts.

DU has been blamed for the effects of Gulf war syndrome -- typified
by chronic muscle and joint pain, fatigue and memory loss -- among
200,000 US soldiers after the 1991 conflict.

It is also cited as the most likely cause of the 'increased number
of birth deformities and cancer in Iraq' following the first Gulf
war.

'Cancer appears to have increased between seven and 10 times and
deformities between four and six times,' according to the UN
subcommission.

The Pentagon has admitted that 320 metric tons of DU were left on
the battlefield after the first Gulf war, although Russian military
experts say 1000 metric tons is a more accurate figure.

In 1991, the Allies fired 944,000 DU rounds or some 2700 tons of
DU tipped bombs. A UK Atomic Energy Authority report said that some
500,000 people would die before the end of this century, due to
radioactive debris left in the desert.

The use of DU has also led to birth defects in the children of
Allied veterans and is believed to be the cause of the 'worrying
number of anophthalmos cases -- babies born without eyes' in Iraq.
Only one in 50 million births should be anophthalmic, yet one
Baghdad hospital had eight cases in just two years. Seven of the
fathers had been exposed to American DU anti-tank rounds in 1991.
There have also been cases of Iraqi babies born without the
crowns of their skulls, a deformity also linked to DU shelling.

A study of Gulf war veterans showed that 67% had children with
severe illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory
problems and fused fingers.

Rokke told the Sunday Herald: 'A nation's military personnel
cannot wilfully contaminate any other nation, cause harm to persons
and the environment and then ignore the consequences of their
actions.

"To do so is a crime against humanity.

"We must do what is right for the citizens of the world -- ban DU."

He called on the US and UK to "recognise the immoral consequences
of their actions and assume responsibility for medical care and
thorough environmental remediation."

He added: "We can't just use munitions which leave a toxic
wasteland behind them and kill indiscriminately."

"It is equivalent to a war crime."

Rokke said that coalition troops were currently fighting in the
Gulf without adequate respiratory protection against DU
contamination.
The Sunday Herald has previously revealed how the Ministry of
Defence had test-fired some 6350 DU rounds into the Solway Firth
over more than a decade, from 1989 to 1999.

[Sunday Herald]

[Jem]

That's such a double standard. The US uses weapons of mass destruction, yet the Iraqis get the finger pointed at them for having weapons of mass destruction? Who knows if the US weapons aren't killing civilians? If the US really doesn't want to hurt civilians in this war, they should be using weapons that won't do so much murder. For a president who is so against abortion (killing babies) for stem cell research purposes, George Bush doesn't seem the least bit concerned about killing civilians (babies, children, etc) with the USA's weapons of mass destruction. What is wrong with this picture?

[Brian]

The United States does not produce nuclear bombs or biological weapons. Those are two of the three types of weapons of mass destruction. While I would say that the weapon described is a chemical weapon, that is only one compared to the many hundreds maybe thousands of WMD's that Iraq has had a history of producing and using on their own people.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Jem
For a president who is so against abortion (killing babies) for stem cell research purposes, George Bush doesn't seem the least bit concerned about killing civilians (babies, children, etc) with the USA's weapons of mass destruction.

Read my previous post in this thread. From what you posted you are saying that the United States uses many WMD's. You're wrong. There are three types of WMD's: nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. From what the first post in this thread said, this is the only WMD used by the U.S. Get your facts straight.

Another thing. I am getting tired of you saying that Bush is against abortion but is not concerned about the lives of Iraqi children. We heard you the FIRST time. And the U.S. is not deliberately trying to hurt kids. When there is a war that is invasion-related, the chances of not killing civilians are impossible. There is no war that has ended without the killing of any one civilian. If you still don't understand it, I'll put in all my posts and everyone elses posts on this page explaining it.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Jem
For a president who is so against abortion (killing babies) for stem cell research purposes, George Bush doesn't seem the least bit concerned about killing civilians (babies, children, etc) with the USA's weapons of mass destruction. What is wrong with this picture?

You're still saying that, and you're still wrong. The U.S. is doing everything it can to avoid civilian casualites. We could have (by now) already leveled Baghdad and overpowered the Iraqi military. But, because that method would cause too many civilian casualties, we are doing it in a way that will be less risky to Iraqi citizens. We care more about the safety of Iraqis than Saddam does!
So, one more time- Bush and the U.S. DOES CARE about Iraqi civilians. Enough already of your illogical assumptions about Bush not caring. Why don't you vent your anger on Saddam- he is the murderer.

[Striel]

Wow, I have deja vu from reading this.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by BJL
The United States does not produce nuclear bombs

The United States has produced more nuclear bombs than everyone else put together in the history of the planet.

[°Bubbly Blonde°]

we dont use em tho.......do we?

[Kitt]

Originally posted by BubbleLuvGrl026
we dont use em tho.......do we?

We're the only ones who ever have. Twice within days apart from the first to the second. One on Nagasaki and one on Hiroshima, Japan.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Kitt
The United States has produced more nuclear bombs than everyone else put together in the history of the planet.

I meant currently. I haven't heard anything about them producing any today. I knew they were produced and tested during World War II and the Cold War by the United States.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by BJL


I meant currently. I haven't heard anything about them producing any today. I knew they were produced and tested during World War II and the Cold War by the United States.

I don't know if wer're making them or not but we have one heck of stockpile.

But the point of the article is not overstated. The bombs we are using are some mighty big SOB's and they spread Depletion Uranium. That contributed to the deaths of Iraqi children over the past 12 years. And that contributed to the deaths and problems of American soldiers with so called Gulf War Syndrome. All of that will repeat itself this time around. Also, the US considered using "low level" nukes in this war. They caught so much flak for even considering such a thing that they shut up about it. I hope that idea was shelved.

[brownsocks]

everyone's personal opions of war in general can agree i hope that no one should be using du shells espicaly not the ones trying to liberate a country from a man who would do it agianst his own people. normal bullets don't care what they hit or kill because they aren't real but for the most part except for certian kinds of lead posioning they stop there. a du shell after it goes into the body of someone if they live the would probably rather die and if the do on the feild which is likely a town the bullet passed through them sits there and waits for a child to come and pick it up then they get sick and probably die because of the lack of medical treatment avaliable to them.

that is my 2 cents