Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
93Sean93

RIP Richard Holbrooke

Recommended Posts

93Sean93

 

Richard Charles Albert Holbrooke (April 24, 1941 – December 13, 2010) was an American diplomat, magazine editor, author, professor, Peace Corps official, and investment banker. He was the only person to have held the position of Assistant Secretary of State for two different regions of the world (Asia from 1977 to 1981 and Europe from 1994 to 1996). Later, Holbrooke was the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan under the Obama administration.

 

 

 

On December 11, 2010, Holbrooke was admitted to George Washington University Hospital in Washington after falling ill at the State Department's headquarters. While there, he underwent twenty hours of surgery to fix an aortic dissection, a rare condition. He died on December 13, 2010, from complications of the torn aorta.  According to the Washington Post, Holbrooke's last words were: "You've got to end this war in Afghanistan." Later they clarified that it was a joking exchange with his doctor, "Yeah, see if you can take care of that, including ending the war."

 

]= give ur tots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mister Pink
I heard about this on Rachel Maddows show. Interesting listening to his biography.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chris

Haven't heard of him but he seems to accomplished alot in his life, rest in peace Rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonny_Tightlips

edit: Welp, jimmy just enlightened me to a bunch of sh*t. Whatever.

Edited by Zak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ari Gold

I despised the man and hope he rots, but condolences to his family.

Edited by Stefche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimmy.

RIH. Good to see his war-mongering ass can no longer support any more genocidal actions, like the occupation of East Timor, Iraq War, Iraq sanctions, and others.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E.A.B.

 

genocidal actions

 

Iraq

 

I don't know much about this guy (Holbrooke), so I'll be forthright about this.

 

But how someone can claim the Iraq war is genocidal is beyond me. Because Iraq was such a peaceful land with Saddam? Because Saddam WASN'T systematically killing Kurds? What's that called again? Oh, right, Genocide.

 

I agree, the Iraq war was a f*cking waste. But come on. Genocide isn't even hyperbole; it's a lie.

 

Anyway, I saw this guy on CNN and Fareed was talking about him. I trust Fareed more than 'Democracy Now', so I'll roll with him. Apparently, he knew how to get sh*t done and wasn't simply a pencil pusher. Good on him.

 

RIP and all.

 

 

Although most of Hussein's large-scale atrocities took place during the 1980s and early 1990s, his tenure was also characterized by day-to-day atrocities that attracted less notice. Wartime rhetoric regarding Hussein's "rape rooms," death by torture, decisions to slaughter the children of political enemies, and the casual machine-gunning of peaceful protesters accurately reflected the day-to-day policies of Saddam Hussein's regime. Hussein was no misunderstood despotic "madman." He was a monster, a butcher, a brutal tyrant, a genocidal racist--he was all of this, and more.

 

But what this rhetoric does not reflect is that, until 1991, Saddam Hussein was allowed to commit his atrocities with the full support of the U.S. government. The specifics of the al-Anfal Campaign were no mystery to the Reagan administration, but the decision was made to support the genocidal Iraqi government over the pro-Soviet theocracy of Iran, even to the point of making ourselves complicit in crimes against humanity.

 

....But his most horrific acts, including the al-Anfal genocide, were committed in full view of our government--the government that we present to the world as a shining beacon of human rights.

 

Make no mistake: The ouster of Saddam Hussein was a victory for human rights, and if there is any silver lining to come from the brutal Iraq War, it is that Hussein is no longer slaughtering and torturing his own people. But we should fully recognize that every indictment, every epithet, every moral condemnation we issue against Saddam Hussein also indicts us. We should all be ashamed of the atrocities that were committed under our leaders' noses, and with our leaders' blessing.

 

 

Edited by E.A.B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TommyMufc-Champs

RIP Richard Holbrooke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimmy.

 

But how someone can claim the Iraq war is genocidal is beyond me. Because Iraq was such a peaceful land with Saddam? Because Saddam WASN'T systematically killing Kurds? What's that called again? Oh, right, Genocide.

 

I agree, the Iraq war was a f*cking waste. But come on. Genocide isn't even hyperbole; it's a lie.

 

Anyway, I saw this guy on CNN and Fareed was talking about him. I trust Fareed more than 'Democracy Now', so I'll roll with him. Apparently, he knew how to get sh*t done and wasn't simply a pencil pusher. Good on him.

 

Nice straw-man. I never said Iraq was well-off under Saddam. I really don't feel like debating the Iraq War with you, as the information to support my deeming of the Iraq War as "genocidal" is freely available on the internet. I also don't get your point. Are you just arguing semantics? The definition of "genocide" is broad and does encompass the actions of the Iraq War. I also see you didn't mention the Iraq sanctions, so I'm guessing you're not disputing those were genocidal (they clearly were). If you so strongly dispute "genocidal", then substitute the words "immensely immoral and completely devastating to the society" if you like in it's place.

 

It's hard to say that Iraq is significantly better off than during Saddam's rule. The US occupation alone, not to mention the sanctions regime, have set back Iraq, easily by decades, and have driven a good fraction of the population out of Iraq. Whole cities are decimated. People have limited/no access to basic necessities like sewers, power, and water, in what was previously one of the most developed countries in the region. Many people have been driven from their homes. The US-created security forces have institutionalized torture. The country is hardly a democracy. The US, like Saddam, has used chemical weapons (white phosphorous, and arguable, depleted uranium) against Iraqis, as the below story shows.

 

And frankly, CNN is trash. You should instead watch Democracy Now, which isn't nearly as cozy with the Pentagon as CNN. Was the below story covered on CNN? How many minutes of prime-time coverage did Parker-Spitzer or Fareed devote to this major story?

 

 

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'

 

 

The shocking rates of infant mortality and cancer in Iraqi city raise new questions about battle

By Patrick Cockburn

 

 

Saturday, 24 July 2010

 

Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.

 

Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.

 

Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. Infant mortality in the city is more than four times higher than in neighbouring Jordan and eight times higher than in Kuwait.

 

Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that "to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened".

 

US Marines first besieged and bombarded Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, in April 2004 after four employees of the American security company Blackwater were killed and their bodies burned. After an eight-month stand-off, the Marines stormed the city in November using artillery and aerial bombing against rebel positions. US forces later admitted that they had employed white phosphorus as well as other munitions.

 

In the assault US commanders largely treated Fallujah as a free-fire zone to try to reduce casualties among their own troops. British officers were appalled by the lack of concern for civilian casualties. "During preparatory operations in the November 2004 Fallujah clearance operation, on one night over 40 155mm artillery rounds were fired into a small sector of the city," recalled Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, a British commander serving with the American forces in Baghdad.

 

He added that the US commander who ordered this devastating use of firepower did not consider it significant enough to mention it in his daily report to the US general in command. Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form. He said: "My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside."

 

The survey was carried out by a team of 11 researchers in January and February this year who visited 711 houses in Fallujah. A questionnaire was filled in by householders giving details of cancers, birth outcomes and infant mortality. Hitherto the Iraqi government has been loath to respond to complaints from civilians about damage to their health during military operations.

 

Researchers were initially regarded with some suspicion by locals, particularly after a Baghdad television station broadcast a report saying a survey was being carried out by terrorists and anybody conducting it or answering questions would be arrested. Those organising the survey subsequently arranged to be accompanied by a person of standing in the community to allay suspicions.

 

The study, entitled "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009", is by Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi, and concludes that anecdotal evidence of a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects is correct. Infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1,000 births compared to 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait. The report says that the types of cancer are "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout".

 

Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people.

 

Of particular significance was the finding that the sex ratio between newborn boys and girls had changed. In a normal population this is 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 females. The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima.

 

The US cut back on its use of firepower in Iraq from 2007 because of the anger it provoked among civilians. But at the same time there has been a decline in healthcare and sanitary conditions in Iraq since 2003. The impact of war on civilians was more severe in Fallujah than anywhere else in Iraq because the city continued to be blockaded and cut off from the rest of the country long after 2004. War damage was only slowly repaired and people from the city were frightened to go to hospitals in Baghdad because of military checkpoints on the road into the capital.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/mi...ma-2034065.html

 

 

 

Unembedded (very important distinction) reporter Nir Rosen on the aftermath of the US occupation of Iraq

 

 

Edited by jimmy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ass reamer

 

If you so strongly dispute "genocidal", then substitute the words "immensely immoral and completely devastating to the society" if you like in it's place.

Just because genocide is morally reprehensible doesn't mean every immoral act constitutes genocide. Those two terms are not interchangeable. The definition of genocide is not broad at all, in fact it is extremely narrow, meaning to deliberately exterminate members of a specific nationality, race, or cultural group. I can agree that the war in a Iraq is a farce, but claiming that US is practicing a policy of genocide doesn't even begin to make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimmy.

 

If you so strongly dispute "genocidal", then substitute the words "immensely immoral and completely devastating to the society" if you like in it's place.

Just because genocide is morally reprehensible doesn't mean every immoral act constitutes genocide. Those two terms are not interchangeable. The definition of genocide is not broad at all, in fact it is extremely narrow, meaning to deliberately exterminate members of a specific nationality, race, or cultural group. I can agree that the war in a Iraq is a farce, but claiming that US is practicing a policy of genocide doesn't even begin to make sense.

Fine. You might be right. At the end of the day, it's pretty inconsequential to me if I potentially used a word in the wrong way once or twice, but I will try to be more deliberate in my word choice in the future. smile.gif

 

edit-

Just because genocide is morally reprehensible doesn't mean every immoral act constitutes genocide. Those two terms are not interchangeable.

 

Oh, I was not trying to imply that "immoral" and "genocidal" were interchangeable, as they are not at all. I was only saying that the semantics of the word "genocide" was not something I found interesting enough to discuss at length, and if the definition of a single word is really that big of a distraction, we should just substitute the word in my post with something we can all more likely agree upon, like calling the war and sanctions "immoral" or "devastating to the society" and moving on.

Edited by jimmy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ari Gold
Anyway, I saw this guy on CNN and Fareed was talking about him. I trust Fareed more than 'Democracy Now', so I'll roll with him. Apparently, he knew how to get sh*t done and wasn't simply a pencil pusher. Good on him.

He was nice and chummy with the so-called Kosovo "Liberation" Army, who were labelled as a terrorist group only years before, until the Clinton Administration realised that they could use them as a tool in bringing Socialist Serbia down; he helped set-up the assumption that Milošević was worse than he actually was; and then, along with Allbright, indiscriminately pressured Clinton into bombing Yugoslavia, 'cause it was "humanitarian warfare". All the time, he was preaching how Milošević was a war-mongerer, and how the "evil Serbs" were committing mass genocide in Kosovo, with "hundreds and thousands" of people dead. He must've forgotten about the fact that the first registered refugees leaving Kosovo left days AFTER the commencement of NATO's bombardment, and the fact that after all autopsies were completed, just over 10,000 bodies were found, INCLUDING COMBATANTS, and the fact that they barely counted 1,000 civilians' bodies in areas where the JNA had strong military activity. Yeah, 10,000 deaths is horrible in any case, but it's not exactly the Holocaust is it, Ms. Allbright and Mr. Holbrooke.

 

Oh, and don't get me started on his dealings with Karadžić and all the other actors in Bosnia.

 

Good riddance to bad rubbish. He shouldn't be looked upon as a Saint who stopped the wars in the Balkans; he should be looked upon as a thug who was the best at exerting American political influence where they wanted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yonkers749

Are you telling me this guys name is Dick-Hole-Broke. I dont mean any disrespect, but I have never heard of this guy, and honestly came to this thread thinking it was a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E.A.B.
I also don't get your point. Are you just arguing semantics? The definition of "genocide" is broad and does encompass the actions of the Iraq War.

I'll be honest with you; I'm just venting.

 

Venting because you used the word 'genocide' and then the swarms of liberals popped in my head.

 

Wrong, yes. Stupid, yes. But. it. wasn't. genocide. I think it was a waste, but come on now.

 

It simply came off in my head as the obnoxious 'Bush=Hitler' sh*t I always saw.

 

 

I never said Iraq was well-off under Saddam.

I'm just sayin' dawg, you use such a strong word as if what was happening beforehand wasn't horrendous.

 

Again; I'm venting at the liberal 'America is the big bad wolf' train of thought here.

 

 

And frankly, CNN is trash. You should instead watch Democracy Now, which isn't nearly as cozy with the Pentagon as CNN.

 

Sorry, I like my news unbiased.

 

Not that CNN is completely unbiased, but it's in what you report that matters. And Democracy Now! is clearly left leaning. Not that it's a bad thing, but it's just not MY thing.

 

As for the Iraqi sanctions, technically they weren't genocide since they weren't put in place to systematically kill an ethnic group, hohohoho monocle.gif . They killed, yes, but that wasn't the reasoning.

 

Two monocles monocle.gifmonocle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise

I was going to respond to an earlier post, but I'll respond to this one instead.

 

 

I also don't get your point. Are you just arguing semantics? The definition of "genocide" is broad and does encompass the actions of the Iraq War.

I'll be honest with you; I'm just venting.

 

Venting because you used the word 'genocide' and then the swarms of liberals popped in my head.

 

Wrong, yes. Stupid, yes. But. it. wasn't. genocide. I think it was a waste, but come on now.

 

It simply came off in my head as the obnoxious 'Bush=Hitler' sh*t I always saw.

 

Jimmy, please explain to me how the Iraq war could be classified as genocide? Genocide isn't all that broad; in fact it's quite specific- its the destruction of a specifically targeted racial, ethnic or national group. Now as a strategist I don't agree with the way the Iraq war, of Afghanistan for that matter, has been fought, but both are a very large step away from the definition of Genocide. The only element remotely comparible is the near-civil-war that broke out 07-09, in which Sunni and Shia death squads roamed the streets of their respective enemies neighbourhoods and murdered or maimed on religious grounds. Now although the Coalition forces largely failed to keep a lid on the simmering ethnic and religious tensions in the country (what do you expect? After 30 years of tyranical government people are likely to go a bit nuts- just look look at post-Soviet Russia and the whole of the Balkans 1991-1995), they didn't play any part in the mass murder or specific targeting of any racial, ethnic or national group- the vast majority of deaths during the entire conflict were Iraqi on Iraqi.

 

 

QUOTE (E.A.B. @

Dec 17 2010, 12:14)

I never said Iraq was well-off under Saddam.

I'm just sayin' dawg, you use such a strong word as if what was happening beforehand wasn't horrendous.

 

Again; I'm venting at the liberal 'America is the big bad wolf' train of thought here.

 

E.A.B has rather hit the nail on the head here. Most of those who rant and rave about the "injustice" of the Iraq war are naive, stupid or ignorant. The Ba'ath party killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians every years for little other reason that sport. They mercilessly persecuted the Kurdish minority, used chemical weapons on civilian populations and engaged in near-industrialised torture and murder on a catastrophic scale. For all it's problems, insurgencies and failures, at least post-war Iraq isn't the hopeless, opressive Orwell-meets-Mugabe-in-a-fetish-club-dungeon nightmare that it was under Saddam.

 

 

And frankly, CNN is trash. You should instead watch Democracy Now, which isn't nearly as cozy with the Pentagon as CNN.

 

Sorry, I like my news unbiased.

 

Not that CNN is completely unbiased, but it's in what you report that matters. And Democracy Now! is clearly left leaning. Not that it's a bad thing, but it's just not MY thing.

 

 

Ahh, Democracy Now. The idiotic, idealist bastion of the US Liberal Left, made up of a wonderful blend of conspiracy theorists, neo-Marxists and IR-Idealists who have precisely half of f*ck-all understanding of international relations or modern politics. The truth is all partisan media outlets need to be taken with a massive pinch of salt, whether or not they have "democracy" in their name or not. Even the so-called free and politically neutral agencies like the BBC have an inherrent political bias- when you start looking at US media agencies that same bias gets amplified stratospherically, with the "right" funding the mainstream media and the "left" countering with the establishment of liberal media sources. Both are equally as biased, partisan and prejudicial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vinnygorgeous

Any news organisation is fundamentally flawed by the impossible task of fairly representing reality, it is simply an unattainable holy grail that has spurned many a book, Stuart Hall has written some good stuff around this. I haven't actually seen Democracy Now but I have seen CNN and the idea that it is more free from political bias than even the most ardent neo Marxist propagandist is a stretch. But then the idea that an American news network has Marxist leanings frankly also sounds other worldly but if it is true then maybe there is hope that America can save itself from its current trajectory to third world status but I doubt it.

 

When the myths become sacrosanct then its hard to change direction, even Jack Welch said of one capitalist myth, "its the dumbest idea in the world" he then carried on amassing a personal fortune while implementing the "dumb idea" and undermining the livelihoods of the many. (for the record that idea was shareholder value maximisation) But alas it is just one of a great many dumbest ideas in the world that the powerful and rich personally benefit from while driven the country into the ground.

 

But that doesn’t stop CNN treating these very wealthy yet calamitous fools like political gurus and so when it comes to social and more worryingly economic policy they present the views of the "markets" as the key experts when really they should be treated as the destructive force that they are, a big smouldering problem burning holes in all our pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise

 

Any news organisation is fundamentally flawed by the impossible task of fairly representing reality, it is simply an unattainable holy grail that has spurned many a book, Stuart Hall has written some good stuff around this. I haven't actually seen Democracy Now but I have seen CNN and the idea that it is more free from political bias than even the most ardent neo Marxist propagandist is a stretch. But then the idea that an American news network has Marxist leanings frankly also sounds other worldly but if it is true then maybe there is hope that America can save itself from its current trajectory to third world status but I doubt it.

 

When the myths become sacrosanct then its hard to change direction, even Jack Welch said of one capitalist myth, "its the dumbest idea in the world" he then carried on amassing a personal fortune while implementing the "dumb idea" and undermining the livelihoods of the many. (for the record that idea was shareholder value maximisation) But alas it is just one of a great many dumbest ideas in the world that the powerful and rich personally benefit from while driven the country into the ground.

 

But that doesn’t stop  CNN treating these very wealthy yet calamitous fools like political gurus and so when it comes to social and more worryingly economic policy they present the views of the "markets" as the key experts when really they should be treated as the destructive force that they are, a big smouldering problem burning holes in all our pockets.

The crucial thing about more right-wing news agencies in comparison to the left-leaning ones is that their political bias is immediately obvious. You'd have to be an utter moron not to see the political allegence of someone like Fox, or as mentioned before, CNN. They have no qualms about only representing one side of the story and accept their own political bias. Whereas the left-wing agencies tend to play the "liberal, free media" card to trick people into believing them as unbiased and impartial whilst they carry out their own political agenda. There's a lot of criticisms to be made against the right-wing media, but the left are undoubtably more deceptive and dishonest.

 

Also, it's painfully obvious the direction of your own political bias from you're statement- not that that's a bad thing of course, but every point of view has it's pitfalls. As far as I'm concerned the rich and powerful will remain rich and powerful under every system besides Marxist Socialism, which doesn't work anyway as it's utterly ignorant of human nature. Someone will always be the downtrodden regardless of what system of government is used, regardles of whether it is left or right leaning. A modern, western capitalist democracy isn't the perfect solution but it's about as close as you can get without completely transforming the political environment by taking elected power away from career politicians and give it directly to scientists, engineers and the like- the specialists in every sector, with the existing political elite providing an advisory role rather than the other way around.

 

 

Also, how's the for a nice edit?

 

 

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'

 

According to that overly long and badly spaced article that you posted (would it have hurt you to tidy it up a little?) the US is somehow responsible for causing cancer, leukemia and birth defects in Iraqi children from Fallujah. Now forgive my skepticism- or don't, if you like, I don't give a crap- but that article firstly mentions use of white phosphorus- and there is no evidence, not one iota of it, which suggests that WP can cause cancers, leukemia or birth defects. Yes, it's capable of causing some pretty horrific chemical and physical burns (thanks to it being pyrophoric) and excessive intake of phosphorus through the skin or mucous membranes causes multiple organ failure- but there is no evidence to suggest that those who are exposed to it recieve any long-term carcinogenic damage. None at all. Whatsmore, the only WP ammunition in usage by the US (to the extent of my knowledge, anyway) is target-marking artillery shells, target marking 70mm rockets and smoke grenades (both infantry portable and vehicle-launched). The former two have no offensive use in an urban battlefield and in the case of the latter- WP type smoke grenades have been used in combat for nearly 50 years, without any of the side effects pinned on them by the article you posted.

 

And now we come on to the use of "uranium". Now, as many of you may know, depleted uranium has seen widespread use in the last 20 or so years as it's pretty much the most dense metal avaliable, and because of it's molecular structure it shears into shapes that remain sharp-tipped regardless of how many times it is broken. But DU ammunition is used for penetrating tank armour, not for any kind of breaching ammunition against buildings. Hence, most stockpiled DU ammunition is 20, 25 or 30mm caliber, and with the exception of the Bushmaster 25mm cannon fitted to certain IFVs and the 30mm gun on Apache helicopters, it wasn't used during the battle (it's other use is in CIW systems on ships, for shooting down cruise missiles or ASMs); almost all sub-20mm calibre ammunition in the US inventory uses tungsten carbine instead of DU as it's penetrator. Now, I know full well their is footage of US heli pilots using the gun against personnel, which isn't advised but is it no way illegal- but in order to produce a similar amount of radioactive material to the bomb that was detonated in Hiroshima (64kg of enriched uranium) you'd need to expend well over 100,000 tonnes of DU. Whatsmore, DU is an alpha emitter, wheras enriched uranium is a beta and gamma emitter. DU is only dangerous when inhaled- the dead outer skin layer protects you from it's radiation. Previous studies have shown that persons such as combatents who have been in vehicles targeted with DU rounds (or those who lived near battle-sites involving the use of DU) have experienced higher rates of leukemia, cancers and birth defects. However, with 80-90% of Fallujah's population evacuated before the start of the battle, and the pyrophoric nature of DU as well (ignites on contact with air) means that the vast majority of DU would have dispersed by the end of the fighting. I simply don't believe that enough could have remained to pose a significant heath risk at the end of hostilities- and all the independent research I've ever seen backs that case up.

 

DU has no real effective combat use against non-reinforced targets, instead thermobaric or tandem charge warheads are used for penetrating non-reinforced buildings (like in an urban landscape) and killing those inside- the former contains a primary explosive mixed with a fuel and an oxidised metal (usually aluminium oxide) that are dispersed over a wide area then detonated, creating a pressure wave that causes significant damage to just about everything in it's blast radius. And the latter utilise a forward-facing shaped charge explosive to breach the target, then an unshaped blast-fragmentation warhead facing to the rear which is detonated shortly after the initial blast, exploding on the other side of the obstruction with a similar force to a grenade. They're also quite effective against older explosively reactive tank armour, with the first charge activating the armour but not penetrating, the second blast occurs benearth the outer armour layer and buckles the plates, damaging the armour's rigidity and preventing it from stopping further rounds effectively.

Edited by dog_day_sunrise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.