Perhaps you could shead some light on it then. I'm always talking to the old guys down at the Legion, I want to hear the stories so I can keep their memories alive.
Please do elaborate.
Unmistakable Message DU Kills
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
Please do elaborate.
Of course I haven't forgotten the post. The Canadian Forces are highly trained specialists familiar with all aspects of the modern three block war. They are presently employed liberating Central Asia So Afaghans can someday drive to Wal-Mart on paved roads, and find a cure for PTSD. When we leave they'll need it.
Juan
Belittled your military service twice: one today and once I called you candyass ....I don't forget because I know I will pay dearly for getting you upset.... have known for years.
I have insulted you on other matters and topics - only twice on your service.
On to more important things like the topic: How is it nobody reports on the coalition partners in the Gulf One Kuwait rescue operation.... is the U.S. the only military to be suffering? I think not....Got this from Wikipedia - but there are plenty of sites... It would seem Agent Orange had more destructive features to both the military and the native population than DU.
Troop deployment
[edit] Coalition deaths
Gulf War casualty numbers are controversial. Coalition military deaths have been reported to be around 378, but the DoD reports that US forces suffered 147 battle-related and 235 non-battle-related deaths, plus one F/A-18 Hornet Navy Pilot, Scott Speicher listed as MIA. The UK suffered 47 deaths, the Arab countries lost 39 men (18 Saudis, 10 Egyptians, 6 from the UAE, 3 Syrians, and 1 Kuwaiti), and France lost 2 men. The largest single loss of Coalition forces happened on February 25, 1991, when an Iraqi Al-Hussein missile hit an American military barrack in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killing 28 U.S. Army Reservists from Pennsylvania.
[edit] Coalition wounded
The number of coalition wounded in combat seems to have been less than 1,000. However, as of the year 2000, 183,000 U.S. veterans of the Gulf War, more than a quarter of the U.S. troops who participated in the War, have been declared permanently disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs [2]. About 30% of the 700,000 men and women who served in U.S. forces in the Gulf War still suffer an array of serious symptoms whose causes are not fully understood [3].
[edit] Pre-war estimates
Before the war Pentagon officials were estimating 30,000-40,000 coalition casualties. The Dupuy Institute stood alone and in front of Congress predicted Coalition Casualties below 6,000. They used the TNDM model which makes use of historical data from previous wars to predict casualties. While the Institute was phenomenally accurate, it was because the Iraqi armed forces fought in the open desert with tanks placed behind sand berms. Had the Iraqi military made use of urban warfare in Kuwait City and dug their tanks in within the city perimeters instead of behind sand berms the actual figures may have been different. The TNDM model makes use of 'human' factors such as morale and they predicted that very few Iraqi divisions would put up resistance. This is a value judgment that is difficult to make accurately before war. The 120,000 professional Iraqi soldiers backed by 4,500 tanks, 4,000 armored vehicles and 3,000 artillery pieces and with another 280,000 conscripted soldiers armed with RPGs, heavy mortars and heavy machine guns provided a force that could have made the low casualty estimate not inevitable. The United States, on the other hand had 3,400 tanks, 3,700 artillery pieces, 4,000 armored personnel carriers, 2,000 helicopters and about 2,600 aircraft.
The 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq have aptly demonstrated how casualties can be inflicted by a technologically inferior force which utilizes urban environments for concealment and cover against precise artillery and air strikes. It has demonstrated how urban warfare might have blunted the greatest advantage of the Coalition, long distance killing. 120,000 committed soldiers backed by modern equipment could be expected to cause large casualties on the order of several thousand; the fact that it did not happen in the Gulf War is no guarantee that it will not happen in the future.
[edit] Iraqi deaths and wounded
Some analysts agree the Iraqi death toll was well below initial post-war estimates. In the immediate aftermath of the war, these estimates ranged as high as 100,000 Iraqi troops killed and 300,000 wounded. For example, a report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force; (1993-ISBN 0-16-041950-6), "Gulf War Air Power Survey" by Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, estimated 10-12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war. This analysis is based on enemy prisoner of war reports. The Iraqi government claimed that 2,300 civilians died during the air campaign, most of them during an F-117 Stealth Fighter strike on what was believed to be an Iraqi military communications center in Baghdad (it turned out to be an air raid shelter).
One infamous incident during the war highlighted the question of large-scale Iraqi combat deaths. This was the “bulldozer assault”, wherein two brigades from the 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) used anti-mine plows mounted on tanks and combat earthmovers to bury Iraqi soldiers defending the fortified "Saddam Line." While approximately 2,000 of the troops surrendered, escaping burial, one newspaper story reported that the U.S. commanders estimated thousands of Iraqi soldiers had been buried alive during the two-day assault February 24-25, 1991. However, like all other troop estimates made during the war, the estimated 8,000 Iraqi defenders was probably greatly inflated. While one commander, Col. Anthony Moreno of the 2nd Brigade, thought the numbers might have been in the thousands, another reported his brigade buried between 80 and 250 Iraqis. After the war, the Iraqi government claimed to have found 44 such bodies.[6] It may have been in the interests of both sides to claim lower figures.
Other independent reports state significantly higher figures. Beth Osborne Daponte’s report for the US Commerce Department’s Census Bureau of Foreign Countries update, estimated 86,000 men, 39,000 women, and 32,000 children killed by Allied Forces. Controversially, she was reprimanded and her report reissued with reduced figures including the omission of women and children deaths. Since the original report she has published more studies that have put the estimate to around 200,000 deaths.[7]
[edit] Controversies surrounding the Gulf War
[edit] Civilian deaths
The increased importance of air attacks from both warplanes and cruise missiles led to much controversy over the level of civilian deaths caused during the initial stages of the War.
Within the first 24 hours of the War, more than 1,000 sorties were flown with Baghdad a major target. The city received heavy bombing due to being the seat of power for President Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi forces' command and control. However, this also led to substantial civilian casualties.
Other aerial attacks also led to civilian casualties, and other incidents dubbed 'collateral damage'. In one particularly notable event, stealth bombers attacked a bunker in Amirya, causing the deaths of between 200 and 400 civilians who were taking refuge there at the time. Subsequently, scenes of burned and mutilated bodies were broadcast and controversy raged over the status of the bunker, with some stating that it was a civilian shelter while others contended that it was a centre of Iraqi military operations and the civilians had been deliberately moved there to act as human shields. An estimated 2,300 Iraqi civilians were killed during the war.
[edit] Friendly fire
While the death toll among Coalition forces engaging enemy combatants was very low, a substantial number of deaths were caused by accidental attacks from other allied units. Of the 147 American troops who died in battle, 24% were killed by friendly fire, a total of 35 service personnel. A further 11 died in detonations of allied munitions. Nine British service personnel were also killed in a friendly fire incident when a USAF A-10A Thunderbolt-II attacked a group of two Warrior IFVs.
[edit] Gulf War syndrome
Main article: Gulf War syndrome
Many returning coalition soldiers reported illnesses following their participation in the Gulf War, a phenomenon known as Gulf War syndrome or Gulf War illness. There has been widespread speculation and disagreement about the causes of the illness and reported birth defects. Some factors considered as possibly causal include exposure to depleted uranium, chemical weapons, anthrax vaccine given to deploying soldiers, and/or infectious diseases. Major Michael Donnelly, a former USAF officer during the Gulf War, helped publicize the syndrome and advocated for veterans' rights in this regard.
[edit] Effects of depleted uranium
Approximate area and major clashes in which DU rounds were used.
Depleted uranium (DU) was used in the Gulf War for the first time on the battlefield, in tank kinetic energy penetrators and 20-30mm cannon ordnance. DU is a heavy metal and chemical toxicant with nephrotoxic (kidney-damaging)[8] and teratogenic (birth defect-causing)[9][10] properties.
Depleted uranium is not a significant health hazard unless it is taken into the body. External exposure to radiation from depleted uranium is generally not a major concern because the alpha particles emitted by its isotopes travel only a few centimeters in air or can be stopped by a sheet of paper.[11] Also, the uranium-235 that remains in depleted uranium emits only a small amount of low-energy gamma radiation. According to the World Health Organization, a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass.
When it does occur, however, uranium exposure is associated with a variety of illnesses.[12] The chemical toxicological hazard posed by uranium dwarfs its radiological hazard because it is only weakly radioactive, and depleted uranium even less so.[13] In some sense, its effect is similar but stronger than that of lead, another poisonous heavy metal.
Increases in the rate of birth defects for children born to Gulf War veterans have been reported. A 2001 survey of 15,000 U.S. Gulf War combat veterans and 15,000 control veterans found that the Gulf War veterans were 1.8 (fathers) to 2.8 (mothers) times as likely to report having children with birth defects.[14] A study of UK veterans who thought they might have been exposed to DU showed aberrations in their white blood cell chromosomes.[15] In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[16][17] Uranyl ion contamination has been found on and around depleted uranium targets.[18] DU has recently been recognized as a neurotoxin.[19]
In 1998, Iraqi government doctors reported that Coalition use of depleted uranium caused a massive increase in birth defects and cancer among Iraqis, particularly leukemia. The government doctors claimed they were unable to provide evidence linking depleted uranium to the cancer and birth defects because the sanctions prevented them from obtaining necessary testing equipment. Subsequently, a World Health Organization team visited Basra and proposed a study to investigate the causes of higher cancer rates in southern Iraq, but Saddam refused.
The World Health Organization assessed the health risks of depleted uranium in a post-combat environment thanks to a 2001 mission to Kosovo. A 2001 WHO fact sheet on depleted uranium concludes: "because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer." In addition, "no reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans" as a result of DU exposure.[20] But the WHO also issues many warnings about DU, "If DU [oxide] dust inhalation resulted in the incorporation of significant amounts of insoluble uranium compounds, long term patient follow-ups should include checks for lung tumours."[21] The WHO also advises preventing access to DU affected sites until it is cleaned up or stabilized.[22] The UN has similar recommendations,[23] as does the US military[24][25][26][27]
The U.S. Department of State has also published a fact sheet on depleted uranium. It states: "World Health Organization and other scientific research studies indicate depleted uranium poses no serious health risks" and "depleted uranium does not cause birth defects. Iraqi military use of chemical and nerve agents in the 1980s and 1990s is the likely cause of alleged birth defects among Iraqi children." In regard to cancer claims, the fact sheet states that "according to environmental health experts, it is medically impossible to contract leukemia as a result of exposure to uranium or depleted uranium," and "cancer rates in almost 19,000 highly exposed uranium industry workers who worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory projects between 1943 and 1947 have been examined, and no excess cancers were observed through 1974. Other epidemiological studies of lung cancer in uranium mill and metal processing plant workers have found either no excess cancers or attributed them to known carcinogens other than uranium, such as radon."[28] However, how this relates to insoluble DU oxide[29] particulates deposited in lungs has not been demonstrated. For instance, there are no known lab studies conducted on animals to determine long term radiological effects of varying levels of DU oxide dust in lungs, and no known field studies comparing known, high, airborne exposure levels with a control group. All studies to date have been based on applied radiological theory, and epidemiological surveys subject to higher variances and unknowns than lab studies.
Belittled your military service twice: one today and once I called you candyass ....I don't forget because I know I will pay dearly for getting you upset.... have known for years.
I have insulted you on other matters and topics - only twice on your service.
On to more important things like the topic: How is it nobody reports on the coalition partners in the Gulf One Kuwait rescue operation.... is the U.S. the only military to be suffering? I think not....Got this from Wikipedia - but there are plenty of sites... It would seem Agent Orange had more destructive features to both the military and the native population than DU.
Troop deployment
-
Military of the United States: 575,000 troops -
Military of Saudi Arabia: 52,000 troops (only 20-40,000 took part in the Liberation of Kuwait & Battle of Khafji) -
Military of Turkey: 50,000 troops (did not take part in any battle) -
Military of the United Kingdom: 43,000 troops Operation Granby -
Military of Egypt: 35,000 troops -
Military of Syria: 16,000 troops -
Military of France: 14,663 troops Opération Daguet -
Military of Kuwait: 7,000 troops -
Military of Pakistan: 5,500 troops -
Military of Canada: 4,500 troops Operation FRICTION -
Military of Spain: 3,000 troops -
Military of the United Arab Emirates: 2,000 troops -
Military of Morocco: 2,000 troops -
Military of Bangladesh: 2,000 troops -
Military of Oman: 950 troops -
Military of Niger: 500 troops -
Military of Bahrain: 200 troops -
Military of Senegal: 200 troops. -
Military of Czechoslovakia: 200 troops -
Military of the Netherlands: 200 troops -
Military of Honduras: 150 troops -
Military of Argentina: Destroyer "Almirante Brown" and a Corvette "Spiro", later Corvette "Rosales" and "Trasport Bahía San Blas". Vessels Identified: 761, Vessels Checked: 273, Escorted: 17. Mission: supervise waters near Kuwait, mostly smugglers and traders -
Military of Denmark: A corvette to supervise waters near Kuwait, mostly smugglers and traders -
Military of Norway: The Nordkapp class OPV KV Andenes to supervise waters near Kuwait, mostly smugglers and traders -
Qatar: Used as a base
[edit] Coalition deaths
Gulf War casualty numbers are controversial. Coalition military deaths have been reported to be around 378, but the DoD reports that US forces suffered 147 battle-related and 235 non-battle-related deaths, plus one F/A-18 Hornet Navy Pilot, Scott Speicher listed as MIA. The UK suffered 47 deaths, the Arab countries lost 39 men (18 Saudis, 10 Egyptians, 6 from the UAE, 3 Syrians, and 1 Kuwaiti), and France lost 2 men. The largest single loss of Coalition forces happened on February 25, 1991, when an Iraqi Al-Hussein missile hit an American military barrack in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killing 28 U.S. Army Reservists from Pennsylvania.
[edit] Coalition wounded
The number of coalition wounded in combat seems to have been less than 1,000. However, as of the year 2000, 183,000 U.S. veterans of the Gulf War, more than a quarter of the U.S. troops who participated in the War, have been declared permanently disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs [2]. About 30% of the 700,000 men and women who served in U.S. forces in the Gulf War still suffer an array of serious symptoms whose causes are not fully understood [3].
[edit] Pre-war estimates
Before the war Pentagon officials were estimating 30,000-40,000 coalition casualties. The Dupuy Institute stood alone and in front of Congress predicted Coalition Casualties below 6,000. They used the TNDM model which makes use of historical data from previous wars to predict casualties. While the Institute was phenomenally accurate, it was because the Iraqi armed forces fought in the open desert with tanks placed behind sand berms. Had the Iraqi military made use of urban warfare in Kuwait City and dug their tanks in within the city perimeters instead of behind sand berms the actual figures may have been different. The TNDM model makes use of 'human' factors such as morale and they predicted that very few Iraqi divisions would put up resistance. This is a value judgment that is difficult to make accurately before war. The 120,000 professional Iraqi soldiers backed by 4,500 tanks, 4,000 armored vehicles and 3,000 artillery pieces and with another 280,000 conscripted soldiers armed with RPGs, heavy mortars and heavy machine guns provided a force that could have made the low casualty estimate not inevitable. The United States, on the other hand had 3,400 tanks, 3,700 artillery pieces, 4,000 armored personnel carriers, 2,000 helicopters and about 2,600 aircraft.
The 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq have aptly demonstrated how casualties can be inflicted by a technologically inferior force which utilizes urban environments for concealment and cover against precise artillery and air strikes. It has demonstrated how urban warfare might have blunted the greatest advantage of the Coalition, long distance killing. 120,000 committed soldiers backed by modern equipment could be expected to cause large casualties on the order of several thousand; the fact that it did not happen in the Gulf War is no guarantee that it will not happen in the future.
[edit] Iraqi deaths and wounded
Some analysts agree the Iraqi death toll was well below initial post-war estimates. In the immediate aftermath of the war, these estimates ranged as high as 100,000 Iraqi troops killed and 300,000 wounded. For example, a report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force; (1993-ISBN 0-16-041950-6), "Gulf War Air Power Survey" by Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, estimated 10-12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war. This analysis is based on enemy prisoner of war reports. The Iraqi government claimed that 2,300 civilians died during the air campaign, most of them during an F-117 Stealth Fighter strike on what was believed to be an Iraqi military communications center in Baghdad (it turned out to be an air raid shelter).
One infamous incident during the war highlighted the question of large-scale Iraqi combat deaths. This was the “bulldozer assault”, wherein two brigades from the 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) used anti-mine plows mounted on tanks and combat earthmovers to bury Iraqi soldiers defending the fortified "Saddam Line." While approximately 2,000 of the troops surrendered, escaping burial, one newspaper story reported that the U.S. commanders estimated thousands of Iraqi soldiers had been buried alive during the two-day assault February 24-25, 1991. However, like all other troop estimates made during the war, the estimated 8,000 Iraqi defenders was probably greatly inflated. While one commander, Col. Anthony Moreno of the 2nd Brigade, thought the numbers might have been in the thousands, another reported his brigade buried between 80 and 250 Iraqis. After the war, the Iraqi government claimed to have found 44 such bodies.[6] It may have been in the interests of both sides to claim lower figures.
Other independent reports state significantly higher figures. Beth Osborne Daponte’s report for the US Commerce Department’s Census Bureau of Foreign Countries update, estimated 86,000 men, 39,000 women, and 32,000 children killed by Allied Forces. Controversially, she was reprimanded and her report reissued with reduced figures including the omission of women and children deaths. Since the original report she has published more studies that have put the estimate to around 200,000 deaths.[7]
[edit] Controversies surrounding the Gulf War
[edit] Civilian deaths
The increased importance of air attacks from both warplanes and cruise missiles led to much controversy over the level of civilian deaths caused during the initial stages of the War.
Within the first 24 hours of the War, more than 1,000 sorties were flown with Baghdad a major target. The city received heavy bombing due to being the seat of power for President Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi forces' command and control. However, this also led to substantial civilian casualties.
Other aerial attacks also led to civilian casualties, and other incidents dubbed 'collateral damage'. In one particularly notable event, stealth bombers attacked a bunker in Amirya, causing the deaths of between 200 and 400 civilians who were taking refuge there at the time. Subsequently, scenes of burned and mutilated bodies were broadcast and controversy raged over the status of the bunker, with some stating that it was a civilian shelter while others contended that it was a centre of Iraqi military operations and the civilians had been deliberately moved there to act as human shields. An estimated 2,300 Iraqi civilians were killed during the war.
[edit] Friendly fire
While the death toll among Coalition forces engaging enemy combatants was very low, a substantial number of deaths were caused by accidental attacks from other allied units. Of the 147 American troops who died in battle, 24% were killed by friendly fire, a total of 35 service personnel. A further 11 died in detonations of allied munitions. Nine British service personnel were also killed in a friendly fire incident when a USAF A-10A Thunderbolt-II attacked a group of two Warrior IFVs.
[edit] Gulf War syndrome
Main article: Gulf War syndrome
Many returning coalition soldiers reported illnesses following their participation in the Gulf War, a phenomenon known as Gulf War syndrome or Gulf War illness. There has been widespread speculation and disagreement about the causes of the illness and reported birth defects. Some factors considered as possibly causal include exposure to depleted uranium, chemical weapons, anthrax vaccine given to deploying soldiers, and/or infectious diseases. Major Michael Donnelly, a former USAF officer during the Gulf War, helped publicize the syndrome and advocated for veterans' rights in this regard.
[edit] Effects of depleted uranium
Approximate area and major clashes in which DU rounds were used.
Depleted uranium (DU) was used in the Gulf War for the first time on the battlefield, in tank kinetic energy penetrators and 20-30mm cannon ordnance. DU is a heavy metal and chemical toxicant with nephrotoxic (kidney-damaging)[8] and teratogenic (birth defect-causing)[9][10] properties.
Depleted uranium is not a significant health hazard unless it is taken into the body. External exposure to radiation from depleted uranium is generally not a major concern because the alpha particles emitted by its isotopes travel only a few centimeters in air or can be stopped by a sheet of paper.[11] Also, the uranium-235 that remains in depleted uranium emits only a small amount of low-energy gamma radiation. According to the World Health Organization, a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass.
When it does occur, however, uranium exposure is associated with a variety of illnesses.[12] The chemical toxicological hazard posed by uranium dwarfs its radiological hazard because it is only weakly radioactive, and depleted uranium even less so.[13] In some sense, its effect is similar but stronger than that of lead, another poisonous heavy metal.
Increases in the rate of birth defects for children born to Gulf War veterans have been reported. A 2001 survey of 15,000 U.S. Gulf War combat veterans and 15,000 control veterans found that the Gulf War veterans were 1.8 (fathers) to 2.8 (mothers) times as likely to report having children with birth defects.[14] A study of UK veterans who thought they might have been exposed to DU showed aberrations in their white blood cell chromosomes.[15] In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[16][17] Uranyl ion contamination has been found on and around depleted uranium targets.[18] DU has recently been recognized as a neurotoxin.[19]
In 1998, Iraqi government doctors reported that Coalition use of depleted uranium caused a massive increase in birth defects and cancer among Iraqis, particularly leukemia. The government doctors claimed they were unable to provide evidence linking depleted uranium to the cancer and birth defects because the sanctions prevented them from obtaining necessary testing equipment. Subsequently, a World Health Organization team visited Basra and proposed a study to investigate the causes of higher cancer rates in southern Iraq, but Saddam refused.
The World Health Organization assessed the health risks of depleted uranium in a post-combat environment thanks to a 2001 mission to Kosovo. A 2001 WHO fact sheet on depleted uranium concludes: "because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer." In addition, "no reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans" as a result of DU exposure.[20] But the WHO also issues many warnings about DU, "If DU [oxide] dust inhalation resulted in the incorporation of significant amounts of insoluble uranium compounds, long term patient follow-ups should include checks for lung tumours."[21] The WHO also advises preventing access to DU affected sites until it is cleaned up or stabilized.[22] The UN has similar recommendations,[23] as does the US military[24][25][26][27]
The U.S. Department of State has also published a fact sheet on depleted uranium. It states: "World Health Organization and other scientific research studies indicate depleted uranium poses no serious health risks" and "depleted uranium does not cause birth defects. Iraqi military use of chemical and nerve agents in the 1980s and 1990s is the likely cause of alleged birth defects among Iraqi children." In regard to cancer claims, the fact sheet states that "according to environmental health experts, it is medically impossible to contract leukemia as a result of exposure to uranium or depleted uranium," and "cancer rates in almost 19,000 highly exposed uranium industry workers who worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory projects between 1943 and 1947 have been examined, and no excess cancers were observed through 1974. Other epidemiological studies of lung cancer in uranium mill and metal processing plant workers have found either no excess cancers or attributed them to known carcinogens other than uranium, such as radon."[28] However, how this relates to insoluble DU oxide[29] particulates deposited in lungs has not been demonstrated. For instance, there are no known lab studies conducted on animals to determine long term radiological effects of varying levels of DU oxide dust in lungs, and no known field studies comparing known, high, airborne exposure levels with a control group. All studies to date have been based on applied radiological theory, and epidemiological surveys subject to higher variances and unknowns than lab studies.
OK I'll give you an opinion.
The United States of America has sown death and destruction that has lasted generations and there's no reason to believe that DU and the on-going development of even more horrific weapons. The American economy instead of being focused on alternatives to war has been engaged for decades in improving the capability of their military to wage war...defense based on pre-emptive aggression is the rationale of the bully and the street-thug. Canada has participated knowingly in producing DU for the engine of American warfare and has used and proliferated weapons of all kinds including chemical and mines, explosives and "delivery-systems" because there's been a market to exploit and Canadians can comfortably sit back and let America take the rap...
The harginger of self-destruction while epitomized by the hypocrisy of the United States in using weapons it holds others in contempt for deploying, is the easily identifiable injustice and illustration of a society and a nation consumed with self-interest before survival....
Hows that for an opinion....
Maybe we should purge our military, it seems to have some funny ideas about defence, I think we're having management problems.Too many of those dumb new age seminars, and sports storys about level playing fields.I find many of the modern military to be charming fellows but misinformed about the world in general, what can you do eh, the profession demands a certain ammount of tunnel vision
in the beginning.:wave:
in the beginning.:wave:
according to the MSDS the military should be wearing adequate respiratory equipment and washing their hands.
Canada's contribution to the first gulf war
Operation FRICTION was the Canadian Forces military operation contribution of 4,500 troops to the Gulf War of 1991. The Canadian military also ordered two destroyers: HMCS Terra Nova and HMCS Athabaskan to enforce the trade blockade against Iraq at the time. The supply ship HMCS Protecteur was also sent to aid the gathering coalition forces.
After the UN authorized full use of force in the operation, Canada sent two CF-18 squadrons with support personnel. Canada also setup a field hospital to deal with casualties from the ground war. When the air war began, Canada's planes were integrated into the coalition force and provided air cover and attacked ground targets. This was the first time since the Korean War that Canadian forces had participated in offensive combat operations.
Operation FRICTION was the Canadian Forces military operation contribution of 4,500 troops to the Gulf War of 1991. The Canadian military also ordered two destroyers: HMCS Terra Nova and HMCS Athabaskan to enforce the trade blockade against Iraq at the time. The supply ship HMCS Protecteur was also sent to aid the gathering coalition forces.
After the UN authorized full use of force in the operation, Canada sent two CF-18 squadrons with support personnel. Canada also setup a field hospital to deal with casualties from the ground war. When the air war began, Canada's planes were integrated into the coalition force and provided air cover and attacked ground targets. This was the first time since the Korean War that Canadian forces had participated in offensive combat operations.
Although it appears it may have been a nasty thing, Agent Orange was not used as a chemical weapon.........it was a defoliant used to clear fields of fire in demilitarized zones. Basically the same stuff was used here in New Brunswick by the Power Commission to clear brush from the sides of roads back in the 60s, with no precautions in handling. Everybody thought it was completely safe.
They were wrong, but even now there is a huge debate about how damaging it was in the LONG term.
In othwer words, you are talking apples and oranges here. Tactical chemical weapons debilitate in minutes, not decades.
What is Agent Purple?
I believe both The Fifth Estate and CBC The National have run pieces on Gulf War Syndrome, including a discussion of DU, and I know I saw a piece on Sixty Minutes that was solely concerned with DU.
Why don't Canadians discuss the long term effects on their own military then?
If the CBC did a documentary on it.... there must be some statistics and information.... I've never seen it discussed on a Canadian forum.
If the CBC did a documentary on it.... there must be some statistics and information.... I've never seen it discussed on a Canadian forum.
Thanks Bear.........I shoulda done that myself.
You know, my Dad retired from the Federal Department of Agriculture in 1982 after 37 years...........he constantly handled chemicals back in the 60s and 70s, including 2,4 D, the major ingredient of Agents Orange and Purple. He never took precautions, wore gloves or masks when spraying herbicide or insecticide. People forget how casual we were about environmental things back in the day.
BTW, my Dad passed away in 2003, at the age of 86, of complications due to Alzheimer's (which runs in the family).
He cut wood on his own woodlot until he was 82.
Not that one case means anything much, except that to include 2,4 D as a "chemical weapon" is at best disingenuous.
I totally agree, if you note in that link I posted, it states(though I have my suspicions about wkik) that...
You can take that however you wish, either it was accidental or intentional. So it may be a fact of the contaminated barrels reaching the point of use, unintentionaly causing this great injustice, yet in other cases, the non-contaminated product, seemed to be benigne.
Colpy how can you use a chemical weapon but not as a chemical weapon? The weapon was used widely as a chemical weapon, to try and confuse it,s murderous employment against the communist hordes with lawn maintenance is pathetic.:wave:
The first statement is indicative of the lack of knowledge about the effects of agents orange and purple.
Then you go on to say that it was used as a weapon, though its effects were not known at that time and it had no accute effects. So your assertion that it was used as a weapon is incorrect and more likely, more of your anti US spin, then it is of any factual accumulation of evidence, as hilited by the first post, I sighted.
This might not be true, but I remember reading (somewhere) that agent orange was not only used to clear foilage for combat purposes, but it was also used to kill crops of those who refused to leave certain areas (or something to that effect). Either way, if a chemical is to aid in killing, destroying etc, I'd say it's a chemical weapon, even thought it wasn't aimed at humans. Seems logical to me. Then you could argue "what about fuel used to fly helos and drive tanks?" And yes, I always have two sided conversations with myself.
No.
To try and confuse what was basically "lawn maintenance" (read "jungle maintenance") with chemical warfare is pathetic.:laughing7:
Geez. 2,4-D is a defoliant. It also doesn't work well on narrow-leaf plants. It does work well on broad-leaf plants. That is why it was used, to defoliate trees so the enemy could be located easier. :roll:
The effects of 2,4-D poisoning: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33440#Symptoms and I might add that in order to produce kidney failure or a pulmonary failure the dosage has to be quite high.
The effects of 2,4-D poisoning: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33440#Symptoms and I might add that in order to produce kidney failure or a pulmonary failure the dosage has to be quite high.