See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Idiocy in D.C., Progress in Baghdad
Source:
www.weeklystandard.com
URL Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte ... icles/000/000/013/416urcoa.asp
Published: Mar 17, 2007
Author: William Kristol
Post Date: 2007-03-17 20:20:21 by BeAChooser
Keywords: None
Views: 3474
Comments: 224
Idiocy in D.C., Progress in Baghdad The surge is working--that's what matters. by William Kristol 03/26/2007, Volume 012, Issue 27 In order to preserve the cosmic harmony, it seems the gods insist that good news in one place be offset by misfortune elsewhere. It may well be that Gen. David Petraeus is going to lead us to victory in Iraq. He is certainly off to a good start. If the karmic price of success in Iraq is utter embarrassment for senior Bush officials in Washington, D.C.--well, in our judgment, the trade-off is worth it. The world will surely note our success or failure in Iraq. It will not long remember the gang that couldn't shoot straight at the Justice Department--or, for that matter, the antics of congressional Democrats--unless either so weakens the administration as to undercut our mission in Iraq. Obviously, it's too early to say anything more definitive than that there are real signs of progress in Baghdad. The cocksure defeatism of war critics of two months ago, when the surge was announced, does seem to have been misplaced. The latest Iraq Update (pdf) by Kimberly Kagan summarizes the early effects of the new strategy backed up by, as yet, just one additional U.S. brigade deployed in theater (with more to be added in the coming weeks): This "rolling surge" focuses forces on a handful of neighborhoods in Baghdad, and attempts to expand security out from those neighborhoods. . . . A big advantage of a "rolling surge" is that the population and the enemy sense the continuous pressure of ever-increasing forces. Iraqis have not seen such a prolonged and continuous planned increase of U.S. forces before. . . . The continued, increasing presence of U.S. forces appears to be having an important psychological, as well as practical, effect on the enemy and the people of Iraq. . . . [Meanwhile] in Ramadi, in the belt south of Baghdad stretching from Yusifiyah to Salman Pak, and northeast in Diyala Province, . . . U.S. and Iraqi forces have deprived al Qaeda of the initiative. This sense of momentum is confirmed by many other reports in the media, and from Americans and Iraqis on the ground. But back in Washington, congressional Democrats are still mired in the fall of 2006 and seem determined to be as irresponsible as ever. They're being beaten back--in part thanks to the fighting spirit of stalwart congressional Republicans. Last week, the Senate defeated a resolution that would have restricted the use of U.S. troops in Iraq and set March 31, 2008, as a target date for removing U.S. forces from combat. On the same day, on a mostly party-line vote, the House Appropriations Committee reported out the Democratic version of a supplemental appropriations bill for the war. It was an odd piece of legislation--an appropriation to fight a war replete with provisions intended to ensure we lose it. Here's what the Democratic legislation does, according to the Washington Post: "Under the House bill, the Iraqi government would have to meet strict benchmarks. . . . If by July 1 the president could not certify any progress, U.S. troops would begin leaving Iraq, to be out before the end of this year. If Bush did certify progress, the Iraqi government would have until Oct. 1 to meet the benchmarks, or troops would begin withdrawing then. In any case, withdrawals would have to begin by March 1, 2008, and conclude by the end of that summer." Got that? Oh yes, in addition to the arbitrary timelines for the removal of troops, there's pork. As the Post explains, "Included in the legislation is a lot of money to help win support. The price tag exceeds the president's war request by $24 billion." Some of the extra money goes to bail out spinach farmers hurt by E. coli, to pay for peanut storage, and to provide additional office space for the lawmakers themselves. So much for an emergency war appropriations bill. The legislation may collapse on the floor of the House this week. It certainly deserves to. Republicans can insist on a clean supplemental--no timelines to reassure the enemy that if they just hang on, we'll be gone before long, and no pork. They can win this fight--and if they do, combined with progress in Iraq, the lasting news from March 2007 will not be Bush administration haplessness; it will be that we are on the way to success in Iraq.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-149) not displayed.
.
.
.
#150. To: BeAChooser (#134)
Doug Rokke is a fellow who spent 30 years in the US Army. The army tasked him to look at depletetd uranium issue and to do some cleanup. He did his job. And now he is sick from it. and I am one who does know that you are aware of all this - you do have sympathy for Rokke's health plight just as we all do as well. But to me that is enough credentials combined with the fact that he is very intelligent and has information and experience to back up what seems to me an 'expert' view on this subject. when the army sent him into that DU field to do clean-up and he learned the hard way it kills people, that is all the credentials he needs.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
b. ROTFLOL! There you have it folks ... scrapper's view of our role in WW2. a. While the lend-lease program helped Russia, it wasn't all rosey for us ( ie. America, in case you get confused about the nation I'm speaking about, BAC). If you had looked at the next reader comment to the one you cut and pasted from re: the amazon title, you might have discovered that the lend-lease program was not exactly in America's best interests or in the interests of the world - Stalin, the bloodiest Dictator of the 20th century - and that Professor Weeks paints Roosevelt's role in helping Stalin as somewhat questionable: "...But Prof. Weeks doesn't stop there, he also paints a lively picture of the political developments leading to the decision of President Roosevelt to come to the rescue of the bloodiest Dictator of the 20th century, Joseph Stalin, in his fight against his opponent and recent collaborator, Hitler. Prof. Weeks also demonstrates that Stalin was actively working through the channels of his espionage agencies to influence the US administration to deliver material aid to the USSR (he cites the Venona decrypts and material from Russia, most notably the NKVD's "Operation Snow"). It becomes clear that the large-scale infiltration of various US government branches by the Soviet espionage agencies played an important role in the speedy decision to send vast amounts of military and civilian goods to Stalin's Soviet Union. Stalin also ordered his agents to obtain military secrets from the US, both before and during the war, even when the Soviet Union was a nominal ally of the US. At times, aid to the USSR was given priority over aid to Britain by President Roosevelt. Roosevelt's dubious and naive role in his dealings with Stalin is presented in some detail as well. Weeks also shows that Stalin always rightly understood the might and potential of the American economic potential. US technical assistance had already played a major role in the mechanisation of both the Soviet agriculture and the Red Army. Stalin has been able to use the huge "tractor factories", built with the help of Ford, among others, to establish the necessary industrial base for the mechanisation of his huge tank forces before the outbreak of the Second World War..." b. It's not just my view. There are a multitude of books that allude to the same thing. In fact, the Brits and Canadians in particular and Europeans generally take offense over the bravado and swagger of chest beating tinhorn macho men like yourself, BAC, who claim it was America that won the war. Au contraire. America's entry helped but the war was already on the way to being lost by Hitler due to his choice to attack Russia. That meant Hitler was committed to fighting on 3 fronts. The Germans were doomed. The British maintained naval superiority and had survived the Battle of Britain - no way would Hitler take Britain. Rommel was getting his butt kicked on the North African front. And if the US had not jumped in - Russia would have finished off Hitler and soon after Uncle Joe would have fallen - the communists could not have survived the uprising of their own people and the Eastern Europeans if FDR and Churchill had not backed the Stalinists' villanous asses and called them "allies." As for Pearl Harbor -HA! -faux reason that caused 300,000 US servicemen deaths including the 2500 at Pearl Harbor - American boys' blood on FDR's hands - read the book "Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor" by Robert Stinnett. From Amazon " Robert Stinnett served the U.S. Navy with distinction during World War II examines recently declassified American documents and concludes that, far more than merely knowing of the Japanese plan to bomb Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt deliberately steered Japan into war with America." c. And you still have not answered my question, did we liberate Poland at the end of the war - the matchstick that triggered the start of WWII - if there's any single measure of who won the war, it's who liberated Poland, yes? Also, you don't seem too concerned about the millions upon millions of Eastern European Christians who were doomed to Uncle Joe's brutal rule and gulag camps. Oh well. They're only Catholics and Orthodox Christians - they don't count much in your books, BAC. They are not "special." d. As for Japan - the Russians beat them up pretty good as well - they crushed their supply lines. http://www.ncesa.org/html/hirosh ima.html "Hiroshima: Historians Reassess" by Gar Alperovitz Foreign Policy (Summer 1995) No. 99: 15-34. Copyright 1995 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
It is amazing the number of people who died from wars and communism during the 20th century!
And other totalitarian govts such as nazis I should add.
Hitler was a small time evil as compared to Uncle Joe and his communist compadres, who were the bigtime genociders. The communists took blood letting very seriously. There's good reason for why they were associated with the color red. What the Naziis did in the concentration camps was unforgiveable but the communists murdered many many many times what Hitler did - and oddly enough there never were any Nuremberg style Trials held to bring them to justice. Nazii-fixated folks like BAC probably view Catholics and Orthodox Christians as being disposable, forgettable, not special so why bother faulting Uncle Joe and the communists? Uncle Joe was "our" ally after all as well as his swell NKVD who kept the Russians and Eastern Europeans marching forward, never to turn back. That's jolly good Russian nationalism, BAC would claim.
Japan would have imploded in time as well. Because of what? Regimes ruled by insanity can't last. Most everyone has been taught that all the Germans loved Hitler, and he killed 6 million Jews, which all the gentiles in Europe were so happy about. Nothing is further than the truth; he killed millions of people, he imposed impossibly high standards on all the civilians, made them snitch on neighbors, threw people in camps for the slightest infractions, raided other countries, it was a demonic regime and demonic regimes including Japan and Cambodia in the 1970s can only last so long. They are not the natural state of things. Germany and Russia would have continued to fight and could have worn each other down to the point where both countries could have ended up with humane regimes. At least nazi Germany ceased to exist, but as we know Soviet Union was only empowered and millions across Europe died who otherwise would probably not have, that is what I think. I realize among some only those 6 million matter, some have strong religious/tribal beliefs which tell them only their people matter, but the fact is many millions of all kinds of people died causing much grief, misery and destruction.
The German people and their neighbors would have tolerated only so much. There would have eventually been uprisings and the nazi regime overthrown, even without the help of the Soviets. The German and Austrian people were increasingly miserable in spite of what the History Channel tells us, it would only have been a matter of time, and a very short time at that. And they became furious when they found out how much they had been lied to by their govt, and how some very bad information such as pertaining to the camps had been kept from them. Another thing, will triumphs over technology every time.
This happened near the Amsterdam airport: On 4th October 1992, at about 6.30 in the evening, El Al flight LY 1862, a Boeing 747-200 crashed into a block of 12-story flats in Bijlmer, on the outskirts of Amsterdam, killing its crew of three, a "non-revenue passenger", and at least 43 people on the ground. Because some of the people in Bijlmer were migrants, who were without documents, the full number of victims remains unknown. According to Seán MacCárthaigh, of the Irish Times, who arrived shortly after the crash,"The El Al plane had scythed through the top five stories of two buildings; about 40 flats took a direct hit. Then a huge fireball rolled through the complex and apartment after apartment popped into flames.... A giant cloud of choking white smoke engulfed the area." What this choking smoke consisted of was a mystery. From day one, right up until 1998, the Israeli government insisted that there was "no dangerous material on that plane. Israel has nothing to hide." This did not however explain why, after the crash, over 850 Bijlmer survivors - residents, police and rescue workers - sought treatment for a host of maladies including fatigue, breathing problems, hair loss, neurological ailments, mental confusion, depression, encephalomyelitis and disabling joint pains. Over several years Dutch newspapers and citizens groups searched for further details in the face of what seemed evidently to be a series of cover ups. Then, on October 4, 1998, the Dutch newspaper, the NRC Handelsblad, published a leaked copy of a page from the plane's cargo documentation. According to the leaked paperwork, Flight 1862 was carrying 10 tons of chemicals, including hydrofluoric acid, isopro-panol and dimethyl methylphosphonate (DMMP) - three of the four chemicals used in the production of sarin nerve gas. The DMMP, supplied by Solkatronic Chemicals Inc. of Morrisville, Pennsylvania, was destined for the Israeli Institute for Biological Research (IIBR) in Nes Ziona, outside of Tel Aviv. IIBR is the Israeli military and intelligence community's front organization for the development, testing and production of chemical and biological weapons. Once again there were lies and a cover up. Israel maintained that the chemicals were to be used to test gas masks - but only a few grams would be needed for such tests. In fact, there were enough chemicals on Flight 1862 to produce 270 kilos of sarin - sufficient to kill the entire population of a major world city. There was more - once again with lies from the powers that be. In the months following the crash, the Dutch citizens' group Onderzoeksgrep Vliegramp Bijlmermeer (OVB) reported how, "in addition to the cocktail of toxic chemicals that came free during the disaster," traces of uranium, zirconium and lanthanum had turned up in soil samples taken from the crash. Worse, there were traces of uranium in faeces samples taken from survivors. One year after the crash, the Laka Foundation, an independent Dutch nuclear research group, revealed that the El Al jet - like all Boeing 747s - carried 1,500 kg of depleted uranium (DU) onboard in the form of counterweights in the tail fins, horizontal stabilizers and wings. DU is an extremely dense metallic by-product of the production of U235, the fissionable uranium isotope used to manufacture nuclear weapons and fuel. It contains residual amounts of radioactive U235, the less radioactive U238 and trace amounts of U236. A Boeing document has acknowledged that swallowing or breathing DU dust can cause "a significant and long-lasting irradiation of internal tissue." DU has been implicated as a cause of Gulf War Symptom - a series of physical and mental debilities remarkably similar to the symptoms reported by the Bijlmer survivors - as a result of the use of depleted uranium shells in that conflict. Large areas of Iraq have also been contaminated and large numbers of children have died with cancers. DU oxidizes at temperatures as low as 350 C. The fire at Bijlmer, fuelled from the airplane itself, reached 1100-1400 C. In response to concerns the Dutch government issued a report which assured the public that the counterweights had remained intact and never posed a threat to health. However, LAKA published its own findings that only 163 kg of the 430 kg of depleted uranium on the plane had been recovered. The shock from this rebuttal triggered the demand for a full Dutch Parliamentary inquiry. The Bijlmer hearings were chaired by Christian Democratic opposition deputy Theo Meijer and was televised weekly. A phone line for psychological counselling was necessary for many viewers. At the committee hearings it came out that an El Al cargo flight between New York and Tel Aviv touched down every Sunday evening. The flights were never displayed on arrival monitors and the documentation for the flight was processed in a special unmarked room. According to the testimony of the Dutch Attorney General, Vrakking, the El Al security detachment at Schiphol was a branch of Mossad, the Israeli secret service. A Dutch Air Guidance Organization employee told the hearing that the "policy" since 1973 was to keep quiet about all El Al activities. Schiphol workers testified that El Al planes were never inspected by customs or the Dutch Flight Safety Board. Maintenance workers were uncomfortable about clearing Flight 1862 for take off as there were many "carry over items" on the maintenance sheet that were uncorrected - but their supervisors had ordered them to clear it for take off. The Dutch press reported that security officials had been waving Israeli air cargo through Schiphol since the 1950s. Shipping the kinds of chemicals aboard LY1862 ordinarily would be a violation of the Chemical Weapons Treaty (which the US has signed). By refueling the jets at commercial, rather than NATO airfields, a way was found around the military treaties. "Schiphol has become a hub for secret weapons transfers," according to Henk van der Belt, an investigator working on behalf of the Bijlmer survivors. "Dutch authorities have no jurisdiction over Israeli activities at the airport." A Televisieproduktie Amsterdam (TVA) report identified Schiphol as one of several European airports that allows El Al to transfer cargo without supervision. TVA claimed that Belgian politicians now fear that "a disaster like the crash in Holland in 1992 is possible at [Belgium's] Zaaventem. This airport is, like Schiphol, under control by the secret police of Israel."
So you're telling me that there isn't one "health physicist" that finds U- 239 and Plutonium to be harmful to human life? I haven't said or implied that at all. Strawman. That is EXACTLY what you have implied, as my post was concerning the contamination of DU used by the military for munintions based upon a DOE report. The contamination consisted of plutonium, neptuniuam, U-239, U-236, and other transuranic elements. Your first post to me on the subject was a rant about Rokke, who is your favorite strawman whenever facts concering the dangers of DU are mentioned. You are a LIAR, just as you always were.
Trolling 101: When confronted by superior facts and logic, demand more proof.
Yes, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about Doug Rokke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Rokke Major Douglas Lind Rokke PhD Education, University of Illinois, 1992, served in the Vietnam War in the USAF as an avionics technician. He then served in the Illinois National Guard where he was decorated for saving the lives of accident victims he found alongside the road on his way home from a monthly drill. First Lieutenant Douglas Rokke was activated for the Gulf War and served predominantly in Riyadh. After the Gulf War, he was attached to a team headed by a senior Army civilian employee that was involved in assessing armored vehicles hit by depleted uranium armored penetrators. After he completed his doctoral degree, he was activated to serve a voluntary active duty tour at the US Army Chemical School, Fort McClellan, Alabama, where he was the liaison officer with a contractor who was preparing training materials about Depleted Uranium. As a GS-13 civilian employee, Rokke directed instruction at this school. He was terminated from that employment while on probation. Rokke commonly refers to this period of work as his being the Director of the Army's depleted uranium program. Rokke has exaggerated that as well as most other aspects of his involvement with the Army and Depleted Uranium. Guess you missed that ... huh? Do you need permission given that they've been posted on a public forum? And did the person who posted them have his permission? Or are you just saying Rokke posted them? You know, the guy who dishonestly claimed he was a "health physicist" to uncounted anti-DU groups? Go ahead, scrapper. Post the pdf's that Rokke claims are his official records. By the way, did you see the material I posted from the Australian government website that quote official communications with the US government and Rokke's military commanders ... stating that most of Rokke claims about his background in the military are outright false? Let me post some of it again: ******** Yet another Australian Government document you folks will ignore: HON FRANK HOUGH (Agricultural) [5.39 pm]: In early July I was made aware of a brochure that was being circulated in Lancelin by the Greens (WA), which was titled “Depleted Uranium: The Silent Killer”. I listened to the Liam Bartlett show on the radio and heard people say that their property values had halved because the Americans were using bombs with uranium tips in Lancelin, which would contaminate the water. I obtained a copy of the brochure issued by Hon Dee Margetts. It states that Dr Doug Rokke, a United States expert on depleted uranium, visited Lancelin on 6 July 2003. It also states, in part - I was rather annoyed when I read that. It was obviously based on information the member received and not from either Senator Robert Hill or the United States Consul General in Perth, Oscar De Soto. I took the time to write to Oscar De Soto and Senator Robert Hill. My letter to the Consul General states, in part - I received a reply from the Consul General this morning. It states - He was one level from being a gopher! He was a junior lieutenant. That is a long way from being a major. They have different pips. He may not have been able to distinguish them! The letter continues - Hon Peter Foss: He sounds like a fraud. Hon FRANK HOUGH: He does. Others sell snake oil. They get carried away. What is worse is that they get mixed up with the Greens (WA) and try to pull the wool over our eyes. I know I could go to America and become Surgeon General and an honorary brigadier and take people for a ride. The people in Lancelin should not be subject to charlatans who tell them their water is full of depleted uranium. The letter from the Consul General concludes - I spoke to the consulate office this morning and I was guaranteed the information is very accurate. The consulate probably has a system linked with the Central Intelligence Agency to pull the records. The details of the letter were not made up overnight. The Consul General took three and a half weeks to research the situation. He was quite clear in determining the facts. Another part of the letter states - The member should apologise to the people of Lancelin. She has been badly misinformed and badly misinformed them. She should write to the Consul General and apologise sincerely for having a go at the US Navy. We have enough problems with trying to establish relationships with other countries without having to deal with this type of rubbish. If she is not prepared to do that, she should enjoy life as something other than a parliamentarian. She is abdicating her responsibilities by putting out this type of rubbish and putting fear in the hearts of people who live in the broader community. This is one of the ploys that people work through. *********
Now there's an *unbiased* source. (wink) Perfect for the 4um. ROTFLOL!
BeAChooser, lets play pretend. Regarding this weekends US military casualities, if you were President, how would you explain their deaths to their families?
Jews and their pets - click me
Where do you get that nonsense, RJ?
. . . Yours sincerely Oscar De Soto Consul General of the United States of America Uh huh, this says it all...LOL..."let me reiterate that the U.S. military does not use DU munitions in Lancelin." Thanks but I'll stick to Dr. Rokke's military records. You did not bother to access them, did you?
I didn't suggest that Stalin was a nice guy. Or not a problem himself. I'm only saying that had we not helped the Soviets and the British, Hitler would likely have won WW2. And then where would we be today? I didn't say or suggest that either. You folks seem to rely mostly on strawmen. What I said is that without US help, Hitler would have won the war against Britain and the Soviets. There is a difference although perhaps its too subtle for you? No, the only thing that kept the Soviets afloat was support from the US. US built equipment moved their army and supplies. US foodstuffs fed their army. And US support of the UK and the threat of US invasion keep large portions of the German military from moving against the Soviets. The Soviets hung on by a thin thread and US support was vital to keeping that thread from breaking. Like I said. Without US support Britain would have starved. The British won the Battle of Britain primarily because of radar superiority and the failure of Germans to recognize its use. But by the end of that period, German technology in radar, aircraft and many other fields had far surpassed that of Britain (and the US). The Second Battle of Britain would have been much different had the US not been a partner to the British. British morale was high ONLY because the convoys were still getting through. Without US help to ensure that happened, Britain would have ended up isolated, starving and vulnerable once again. Oh ... is that why in May 1942 Rommel won a stunning victory at Gazala and captured Tobruk? Because the British were kicking his butt? Is that why he drove them back to Egypt? Because they were kicking his butt? The Battle of Alam el Halfa, which finally turned things around, took place between August 30 and September 6, 1942 ... 9 months after the US joined the war. The US invaded North Africa in November 42. It was Operation Torch which broke the back of the Germans in Africa. And guess who did it? An American general named ... Patton. But had there been no US help and Britain was still hanging on by its own thin thread ... Two can play this game. Had Hitler been deposed, German generals would have been free to fight the war as they saw fit. A very good case can be made that it was Hitler's mistakes against Britain, in North Africa and against the Soviets that kept Germany from winning in each case. And Hitler was lot closer to being deposed than Stalin ever was. With the US out of the picture perhaps the Generals would have seen the light? You only prove my point. Folks like you would have ensured the US didn't enter the war had the media of today reported the situation back then like it has reported the WOT. Or at least guaranteed that the mantra "FDR LIED, GIS DIED" would have ensured we lost that war or sued for peace before US might was really felt. ROTFLOL! I hate to tell you this, but your allies against the Iraq war, liberal democRATS and other leftists, are the ones who in the 80's and 90's wanted to appease and learn to live with the Soviet machine. It took a Republican President, a Catholic Pope and good ol' Margaret to bring it down. And when did this happen? Oh yes ... long, long, long after the US entered the war when US forces were knocking on Japan's door. I guess you missed that little detail.
yeah, he's one of 'those people', right? laugh it up, dickbag. while you're down there, you might want to pick some more trash from the Horowitz peanut gallery.
Oh please. Have you nothing but strawmen to offer? The ISSUE is whether the Germans would have defeated the Soviets had the US not helped them in WW2. The ISSUE is what would the world look like today had that happened. Keep in mind that the Germans were only a little behind America in the race for the bomb and that race was given urgency here in the US primarly because we were at war with Germany. Had that not been the case, Germany might well have beaten the US to its development. And you may not know this but at the end of 1945, the Germans had a bomber that could fly to the US and return. That bomber could easily have carried nuclear weapons. Like I said to you folks. What then?
Really? The Soviet regime lasted the better part of a century. That's enough time to do a lot of damage, Diana. Do you honestly think that had Germany and Japan won WW2 due to the US staying out of it, they'd have just ignored the US for all those years until they collapsed? Really??? (high squeaky south park voice with head tilted) Another strawman. No one is now being taught ALL Germans loved Hitler. The Soviets, which as scrapper has pointed out was just as bad or worse, lasted most of a century. And they didn't just ignore us, Diana. Neither would the victorious Germans or Japanese. You have got to be kidding. ROTFLOL!
Like happened in the Soviet Union? Like has happened in Communist China? Forget the Soviets. They are gone in your alternate world. The Germans defeated them using technology that even the US didn't have at the end of WW2. One would think the Soviet and Chinese people, being as miserable as they were for decades, would have revolted like you claim the Germans would have. Is that so? Then surely Saddam should have beaten us during the First and Second Gulf wars.
No that is not what I implied (or said). In fact, let me post something you were posted previously (back in LP days) that proves you aren't being truthful. ************* **************** http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1101.html Q: What is your opinion, as a professional health physicist, about the use of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition in war operations? A: Human health risks from exposure to DU can be broadly categorized in terms of radiological or chemical toxicity. Because of DU's low radioactivity or specific activity, a very high exposure is required to increase the radiological risk. For example, an acute inhalation of gram quantities of respirable DU aerosol would be needed. This would only be possible for soldiers present in armored vehicles struck by DU penetrators. Exposure of the general public to environmentally dispersed DU may pose a risk of chemical toxicity depending on the level of exposure, primarily from ingestion. At a recent experts' workshop on DU in the Balkans (Bad Honnef Germany; see the Health Physics Society's Newsletter, September 2001 for details), United Nations scientists studying the environmental behavior of DU showed that DU dissolving from penetrators embedded in soil did not migrate more than 20 cm from the source and that a very small fraction of the DU had dissolved. They did not find any DU contamination in milk, well water, houses, or vehicles in areas where DU munitions were used, nor was any DU measured in urine samples taken from soldiers who were deployed in regions where DU was used. Because evidence indicates that human exposures to DU will be very small, and that these levels will be small fractions of the public's routine exposure to natural uranium, predicted health effects appear to be inconceivable. Raymond A. Guilmette, PhD **************** And here, once again, is the collective wisdom of the Health Physics Society: http://hps.org/documents/dufactsheet.pdf Are there any health effects associated with exposure to DU? DU behavior in the body is identical to that of natural uranium. Uranium and DU are considered internal hazards. Therefore, inhalation and/or ingestion of these materials should be minimized. In general, natural U and DU are considered chemical health hazards, rather than radiation hazards. The exception is the case where DU is inhaled in the form of tiny insoluble particles, which lodge in the lungs and remain there for very long times. DU is less of a radiation hazard than natural U because it is less radioactive than natural U. Direct (external) radiation from DU is very low and only of concern to workers who melt and cast U metal. DU used in commercial civilian applications does not present a significant health hazard because it is usually in solid form and not available for inhalation or ingestion. Military operations with DU, however, may contaminate soil, groundwater, and breathing air. When used as a weapon, small particles of DU may be produced. These particles have high density and most fall to the ground very close to where they are produced. Studies have been made of workers and other persons who have ingested or inhaled uranium. There is no known association between low-level DU exposure and adverse health effects, including birth defects. In large quantities, DU exposure can cause skin or lung irritation, but only soldiers in the immediate vicinity of an attack that involves DU are potentially exposed to these levels of contamination. People who live or work in areas affected by DU activities may inhale or consume contaminated air, food, or water. Soldiers with wounds containing fragments of DU shrapnel may develop effects at the wound sites. However, the risks to these sites decrease quickly once the DU is removed. Persons exposed to very large inhalation doses of uranium have shown minor, transitory kidney effects, which typically disappear within days to a few weeks after exposure. Persons inhaling insoluble particulates that lodge in the lung may be at elevated risk of developing lung cancer many years later, particularly if they are smokers. But lung cancer has yet to be demonstrated in uranium workers or others exposed acutely or chronically to uranium. A group of Gulf War veterans who have small DU fragments still in their bodies continue to be followed by government scientists to determine whether there will be long-term health effects. As of early 2005, only subtle but clinically insignificant changes in measures of kidney function have been observed. One common observation is a persistent elevation in the amount of uranium measured in the urine more than 10 years after exposure. This reflects the continued presence of DU in wound sites and its ongoing low-level mobilization and absorption to blood. In summary, some minor health problems have been observed following exposure to DU, but ONLY with high levels of exposure. Exposures to airborne DU or to contaminated soil following military use are not known to cause any observable health or reproductive effects. ************* http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q746.html Q: How are bullets made by depleted uranium, and what reactions do they cause when they enter into contact with the ground and with humans? A: Because of its very high density—nearly twice that of lead—and certain other properties, depleted uranium is used in certain kinds of munitions because of its ability to penetrate heavily armored vehicles such as tanks and armored personnel carriers. Depleted uranium (DU) is not used in small cartridges or bullets for rifles or machines guns but alloyed DU is used in the 25, 105, and 120 millimeter (mm) kinetic energy cartridges used primarily as antitank munitions. DU is also a component in some tank armor and sometimes used as a catalyst for land mine systems. Since depleted uranium is weakly radioactive, the public has been concerned about the possiblility of adverse health effects from DU. DU is a heavy metal, and like all heavy metals such as mercury and lead, is toxic. However, except in certain very unusual situations, it is the chemical toxicity and not the radioactivity that is of concern. And, from a chemical toxicity standpoint, uranium is on the same order of toxicity as lead. Largely from work with animals along with a few instances in which humans inhaled very large amounts of uranium, the chemical toxicity of uranium is known to produce minor effects on the kidney, which in humans who have suffered large acute exposures have been transitory and wholly reversible. Because depleted and natural uranium are only weakly radioactive, radiological effects from ingested or inhaled uranium have not been detected in humans. Human experience with uranium has spanned more than 200 years. In the early part of the twentieth century, uranium was used therapeutically as a treatment for diabetes, and persons so treated were administered relatively large amounts of uranium by mouth. Tens of thousands of persons have worked in the uranium industry over the past several decades, and have been followed up and studied extensively as have populations in Canada and elsewhere who have high levels of uranium in their drinking water. Results of these studies have not revealed any ill health in these populations that is attributable to the intake of uranium. This is not surprising, as the risk from the radiation dose from uranium is far overshadowed by its potential chemical toxicity, and intakes of uranium of sufficient magnitude to produce chemotoxic effects are unlikely in and of themselves. Any such effects from ingestion or inhalation of uranium would likely manifest themselves first in the form of minor effects associated with the kidneys. That military personnel and others who may have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions are suffering from various illnesses is not in dispute. That their illnesses are attributable to their exposure to uranium is very, very unlikely. Health physicists are deeply concerned with the public health and welfare, and as experts in radiation and its effects on people and the environment, are quite aware that something other than exposure to uranium is the cause of the illnesses suffered by those who have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions. A truly enormous body of scientific data shows that it is virtually impossible for uranium to be the cause of their illnesses. Despite this body of scientific data to the contrary, misguided or unknowing people continue to allege that the depleted uranium, and specifically the radioactivity associated with the depleted uranium is the cause of these illness. This is indeed unfortunate, for health physicists and other scientists and physicians already know that depleted uranium is not the cause of these illnesses and thus any investigations into the cause of these illnesses should focus on other possible causes. If we are to offer any measure of relief or solace to these suffering people, and to gain some important additional knowledge of the cause of their illness, we should not waste our valuable and limited energies, resources, and time attempting to point the finger at depleted uranium as the culprit, when it is already known that uranium is almost certainly not the cause of the problem. With respect to reactions with the soil, in time depleted uranium will likely leach into the soil and become mixed with it. It will for all practical purposes be chemically indistinguishable from the natural uranium that is already present in the soil all over the earth. One could create all kinds of scenarios, but probably the best way to think about DU in the soil is to compare it with lead. Because lead and uranium are so similar from a toxicological standpoint, the concerns are about the same. Ronald L. Kathren, CHP **************** Now you go ahead and offer the name of a REAL health physicist who says DU is anything remotely approaching the threat you claim. Go ahead, FL.
And here's some more material you've been posted before: http://www.iem-inc.com/askset.html "Integrated Environmental Management, Inc. (IEM) is pleased to offer visitors to this web site an opportunity to ask a Certified Health Physicist (CHP) a question on any radiological issue that your firm or organization is facing." Well guess what ... someone already did. http://www.iem-inc.com/askq14.html "From my research, it looks like the military does monitor and test soldiers exposed to DU to determine the levels of uranium they may have been exposed to. I have found no scientific evidence of an increased rate of birth defects in children born to Iraq War veterans. Furthermore, exposures to the levels of DU experienced by military personnel would result in no toxic or debilitating health effects other than those that might be associated with conventional ordnance shrapnel wounds." *************** http://www.forces.gc.ca/health/information/med_vaccs/engraph/DU_Backgrounder_e.asp "... snip ... A souvenir hunter who picked up a piece of depleted uranium penetrator rod (the core of large DU munitions) and carried it in his pocket for a few days would receive a relatively high dose of short-range beta radiation to the skin adjacent to the souvenir. But it would not be enough to cause a burn - much less a significantly elevated risk of skin cancer" "In the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists the authors tried to estimate the possible external gamma-radiation levels on the battlefield by assuming that 100 tons of depleted uranium had been distributed uniformly over a one-kilometer-wide strip along 100 kilometers of the "Highway of Death" between Kuwait City and Basra, a city in southern Iraq. The average dose for someone who lived in the area for a year would be about one mrem - or about 10 percent of the dose from uranium and its decay products already naturally occurring in the soil. The dose rate immediately around a destroyed vehicle could be about 30 times higher. But even that figure would only add about 10 percent to the natural background radiation." "The authors of the article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists also note "For perspective, the driver of a tank equipped with DU munitions would get dose rates of up to 5 times natural background, corresponding to a doubling of the background dose if the driver spent 40 hours per week in the tank all year." Depending upon the nature of the impact, a significant fraction of a DU penetrator can burn, oxidizing into an inhalable aerosol. If we assume that 20 percent of the depleted uranium burns, a reasonable estimate based on army tests, the impact of a heavy DU penetrator might generate a kilogram of uranium oxide aerosol For soldiers outside struck vehicles, the aerosol inhaled in the minutes immediately after a vehicle struck by DU munitions would be greatly reduced by the fact that the kinetic energy was turned into heat by the impact. For a heavy penetrator, the released energy would be equivalent to the explosion of up to a kilogram of TNT, lifting the DU aerosol upward on a column of hot air. Because of this vertical dilution, the amount of depleted uranium inhaled by a person nearby would probably not exceed 0.1 milligrams. The dose to a person a mile away directly downwind would be about ten times less. The main cancer risk from inhaled depleted uranium would be from tiny insoluble particles lodged deep in the lungs. According to the inhalation-retention model constructed by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP), 15 percent of an insoluble inhaled uranium oxide aerosol could be retained in the lungs for more than a year. However, because of the low radioactivity of depleted uranium, the radiation dose would be quite low. For someone close to the battle who inhaled one milligram of depleted uranium - an unlikely scenario - the equivalent whole-body dose would be up to 0.1 rem. That is roughly half the annual dose from inhaled radon and its decay products in a typical single family home in the United States. The estimated added risk of cancer death for such a dose would be about one in 20,000. (To put things in perspective, we in the United States have a one-in five risk of dying of cancer)." Depleted uranium ammunition is shielded, which further reduces its radiological hazard. The Defence Radiological Protection Service in the UK has stated "The external radiation hazard would arise from personnel being in close proximity to DU and is concerned mainly with beta, gamma and x-ray radiation. The alpha radiation poses no external hazard to intact skin. AWE and DRPS have conducted measurements of external radiation levels inside tanks to establish the external radiation exposure. These demonstrate that personnel would need to be in a fully DU loaded tank for 1500 hours before they would reach the annual whole body dose limit (50 mSv). There is no significant external hazard to personnel working with and exposed to DU ammunition in armament depots or stores. Over 5000 hours of exposure to DU would be required before the current dose limit for exposure of the whole body (50 mSv) would be exceeded. The main external radiation hazard from DU is from contact with bare skin. The current dose limit to the skin will only be exceeded if the skin remains in contact continuously with DU for more than 250 hours per year. Naomi H. Harley is an authority on radiation physics. She earned her Ph.D. in radiological physics at the New York University where she is currently a research professor at the University's School of Medicine, Department of Environmental Medicine. She has authored or co-authored more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles on radiation exposure, with emphasis on natural background radiation. She has written six chapters in books dealing with radiation or toxicology and holds three patents for radiation measurement devices. She is a council member on the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, an advisor to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and an editor of the journal Environment International. In commenting on reports of some doctors finding traces of depleted uranium in the urines of service members years after any possible exposure, Dr. Harley notes this would only be possible if the military members had depleted uranium fragments embedded in their bodies. She comments on the issue of some veterans being convinced that fragments could be inhaled particles lodged in their lungs by stating "It's hard to imagine that anybody could have inhaled enough material so that it could still be there eight or nine years later, enough so that you could see the amount being dissolved and then getting into the urine." Harley says she's heard people project that the use of depleted uranium will cause tens of thousands of new cancers in Gulf War veterans and Iraqi citizens, but says such projections frighten veterans unnecessarily because there is no scientific support for such claims. "There is no way you can get enough uranium into the body to cause even one cancer. You can't inhale it, you can't ingest it. You would choke to death before you could inhale that much material." ******************* http://www.bovik.org/du/snl-dusand.pdf Here is an excerpt from it's conclusions: "The study described in this report used mathematical modeling to estimate health risks from exposure to depleted uranium (DU) during the 1991 Gulf War for both U.S. troops and nearby Iraqi civilians. The analysis found that the risks of DU-induced leukemia or birth defects are far too small to result in an observable increase in these health effects among exposed veterans or Iraqi civilians. Only a few veterans in vehicles accidentally struck by U.S. DU munitions are predicted to have inhaled sufficient quantities of DU particulate to incur any significant health risk (i.e., the possibility of temporary kidney damage from the chemical toxicity of uranium and about a 1% chance of fatal lung cancer). The health risk to all downwind civilians is predicted to be extremely small." Let's see if you just dismiss or ignore them like you did then.
You mean by resuming the subsidized grain shipments to the USSR that Carter stopped? If nothing else, you're good for a mid-day belly laugh.
diana: Another thing, will triumphs over technology every time. BAC: Is that so? Then surely Saddam should have beaten us during the First and Second Gulf wars. a. LOL - look who is living in an alternate world - knock, knock anyone home,BAC? If you believe that the Germans defeated the Russians in WW II, then it's no wonder that you believe the propaganda from Weekly Standard and News Max about our eminently successful military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. You're a riot, oozer. From the BBC: "...In the spring of 1944, a Soviet invasion of Germany became a real possibility, as Soviet troops pursued the retreating German army. Hitler ordered the citizens of Germany to destroy anything that the enemy could put to good use. Embittered by defeats, he later turned against the Germans themselves. 'If the German people lose the war, then they will have proved themselves unworthy of me.' Hitler suffered his greatest military setback of the war in the summer of 1944. More destructive by far than the D-Day landings, Stalin's Operation Bagration in Belorussia eliminated three times more German army divisions than the Allies did in Normandy. Hitler retaliated by demanding specific divisions of the German army stand fast to the last man - the very tactic that Stalin had deployed so disastrously in the early days of the war. Defeat for Germany was only months away. Final victory came for Russia when Soviet soldiers hoisted the red flag over the Berlin Reichstag in April 1945. Soviet soldiers hoisted the red flag over the Berlin Reichstag in April 1945." End of story, BAC. b. You know why Stalin's government did not fall after WW II? One of the reasons and major it was - Stalin's brutal grip was strengthened by the FDR's lend-lease program. It did not just fuel Stalin's war machinery to fight Hitler, it strengthened him to fight any insurrections from within. Didn't you read the Professor Weeks' book from which you quoted? As for our "beating Saddam" - I don't recall Saddam's army fighting ours in 2003 - I just remember video clips of lots of army uniforms strewn on the streets but no army to face off against. Did you see something different than me? As for our successfully pacifying Iraq after the Iraqi military faded into the shadows, the verdict is still out in that regard. Diana is right - that the "will" of the Iraqi insurgents will ultimately overcome the technology of the foreign occupier. But what do you care? Israel has been made safer by the chaos and instability in Iraq. In fact at last week's AIPAC conference, Nancy Pelosi was booed when she called the Iraq War a failure - that particular crowd thinks the Iraq War was a success - it accomplished everything they wanted to happen - for Israel's national security. In fact, Olmert himself on several occassions has said the Iraq War is great, wonderbar. Well, some people are happy - too bad it's not the US public or the Iraqi civilians or the UK public. But AIPAC and Olmert are on the moon with joy. BAC, do you even care about the US soldiers' deaths [ apart from your empty platitudes about "respecting" US soldiers] who were sent to fight in a war for lies, a war for the benefit of Israel/Haliburton/Exxon? And why didn't you join this fabulous Iraq war effort if you believed in its merits? Last but not least the toll the war for lies has taken on our fair nation's reputation on the world stage is a loss we will not be able to recover from for generations to come. And for that we should thank the war mongering chickens**t IsraelFirst neocons like Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and their anti-American ilk - better known as BAC's heroes.
What is his masters in? As you've probably seen I posted about the plane crash at Bijlmer, I was around there a couple years after it happened and it was a big issue. Americans aren't the only ones who are experts in such matters, and this Dr. Rokke certainly isn't the only person in the world who would or wouldn't know about DU. That would sound strange for a PhD in education to be an expert on DU but if he has a master's in a related science and did a lot of coursework in that area it would explain it, though he appears to have some detractors so who knows, it would be interesting to find out about the rest of his education.
"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." I had to look that up as that term is flying around a lot here lately.
They had help and were in a more secure location and larger geographically than Germany. Your bomb argument may have some merit, I'm not so sure they were that close to us at the time in development though as a lot of their best scientists defected.
I don't have time today to do more research into Dr. Rokke's undergraduate degrees, but he was indeed at one time viewed as an expert in DU matters, toxic chemicals in the environment. In fact, he is named as a participant in a CDC conference publication from 1999 - at that time Dr. Rokke was an Ass't Professor at the Dept. of Physical and Earth Sciences, Jacksonville State U and last I heard, Jacksonville State U was not a middle school. http://www.cdc.go v/nceh/publications/gulfwar/report.pdf "The Health Impact of Chemical Exposures During the Gulf War: A Research Planning Conference" February 28 - March 2, 1999 Crowne Plaza Hotel - Atlanta Airport Atlanta, Georgia Sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Collaboration with the Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services the National Institutes of Health, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry a. See Appendix A Registered Participants, page 65 Douglas Rokke, PhD Assistant Professor Jacksonville State University Dept. of Physical and Earth Science Jacksonville, AL b. And page 89: Prevention Workgroup: Members Douglas Rokke, PhD - Assistant Professor, Department of Physical and Earth Science, Jacksonville State University c. And page 100, Prevention Workshop Members' Presentations: "Dr. Douglas Rokke discussed procedures for identifying and handling toxic materials in the Gulf War theater and the role of mitigation efforts and criteria in limiting extent of exposures. He highlighted the need to recognize and select appropriate courses of action against various threats in the military arena."
Like the BBC and the Christian Science Monitor are not going to check what they print. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48191&Disp=112#C112 He is Dr Doug Rokke, a US health physicist who led the DU clean-up in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq immediately after the Gulf War. In 1994, Dr Rokke, an Army Reserve captain, was appointed director of the Pentagon's DU project, a job he left in 1997. Kosovo: Special Report He helped develop an education and training programme, and conducted tests on DU explosives in the Nevada desert. The Pentagon has confirmed that A-10 aircraft are using DU rounds in the war with Serbia. They are extremely heavy, and are used for their armour-piercing capability. Veterans from the 1991 conflict believe DU, which is both radioactive and toxic, may help to explain the existence of Gulf War Syndrome. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48191&Disp=120#C120 "This [DU] is the Agent Orange of the 1990s - absolutely," says Doug Rokke, a former Army health physicist who was part of the DU assessment team in the Gulf War, and DU project director for the training package.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12 KJV
I don't believe that. Didn't say it. Didn't suggest it. Just another scrapper strawman. The Soviets defeated the Germans. BUT, in large part thanks to the help of the US. Had the US not provided that help ... Almost three years after the US entered the war. I'm glad you recognize that the Lend/Lease fueled Stalin's war machine. Without it Hitler's Germany would have won. Then what? Well I see you are rooting for their side. Too bad we have folks like you and those in the mainstream media doing everything possible (since almost day one) to weaken OUR will. Given that, whose side are you on?
I've previously linked his own resume. http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Rokke-Depleted-Uranium-DU21apr03.htm#1 It states: * Doctor of Philosophy; University of Illinois; 1992. It doesn't specify the field.
No more so than Germany would have been had it beaten the British and Germans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4598955.stm "Historians working in Germany and the US claim to have found a 60-year-old diagram showing a Nazi nuclear bomb."
He is NOT named as an expert on DU in that report. DU is not even mentioned in the same sentence as Dr. Rokke in that report. Dr. Rokke was an Assistant Professor in environmental science. He did not gain tenure.
No he is NOT. robin still hasn't figured that out? Well, that's what happens when you listen to only one side of a debate. ROTFLOL!
So do you find U-239 and plutonium to be safe to inhale and ingest BAC?
A physicist or chemist with a doctorate degree holds a Phd, not any other type of doctorate degree. So Doctor of Philosophy could be a Phd in Physics (Doctor of Philosophy in Phyics).
Your propaganda outlets are either deliberately misleading people, or are unaware of the fact that DU is contaminated with transuranic elements. They apparently have never tested any real DU munitions, and are simply using theoretical values and assumptions based on invalid data.
So did you enter that Wikipedia article all by yourself BAC?
People don't get a PhD in Education, they get a Ed.D or D.Ed A PhD is a research degree and applies to a wide range of sciences and humanities. Not in this case. Various sources (that you've previously been linked) clearly indicate Rokke's degree was in Technology Education. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/supplements/FosterBibliography.html "A Partial Bibliography of Recent Graduate Research in Technology Education and Related Fields ... snip ... This bibliography is a compilation of recent masters theses and doctoral dissertations completed in Technology Education, and related fields such as Industrial Arts, Industrial Technology, Industrial Vocational Education, and Trade & Industrial Education at institutions listed in the NAITTE/CTTE Directory ... snip ... Rokke, D. L. (1992). "Perceived physics concepts needed to teach secondary technology education as general education." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign."
Really? ********************* http://teched.vt.edu/CTTE/ImagesPDFs/Mono17GradResearchDatabase.pdf The Technology Education Graduate Research Database 1892-2000 Council on Technology Teacher Education ... snip ... Rokke, Douglas Lind. (1992). Perceived physics concepts needed to teach secondary technology education as general education. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University Of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign. Dissertation Abstracts Online Accession No: AAG9236582 *********************** Why do you suppose that Rokke is not a member of any physics organizations? He's a member of the National Association of Industrial Technical Teacher Educators. *********************** http://www.coe.uga.edu/naitte/minutes/naitte_min_12-12-02.pdf "National Association of Industrial Technical Teacher Educators Executive Committee Meeting Las Vegas Hilton – Room 9 – 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM. Las Vegas, NV December 12, 2002" ... snip ... The major work of the past year was planning the NAITTE Program for the 2002 ACTE Convention. We again worked with the Technology Education Division to schedule the program. ... snip ... Checks that have come for the 2002-03 membership year imembers report in October. ... snip ... Marcelle Hardy, University du Quebec Montreal, $60.00 *************
Comments (191 - 224) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#151. To: BeAChooser, robin, diana (#142)
(Edited)
a. the US supplied 92.7% of the USSR's railroad equipment, including locomotives and rails, and from 15% to 90% of production in all other categories. Weeks, who reads Russian, surveys these recent studies and cites them to show that Lend-Lease was indeed "Russia's Life-Saver."
#152. To: scrapper2 (#127)
America came in for clean up duty and to fight the Japanese. We lost approx. 300,000 men in WW II. Britain lost 600,000. Russia lost 17-20 Million. Can you imagine such numbers of losses?
#153. To: All (#152)
#154. To: Diana, BeAChooser (#153)
And other totalitarian govts such as nazis I should add.
#155. To: BeAChooser (#139)
Who would have destroyed Nazi Germany, Diana?
#156. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, All (#142)
To suggest they, on their own, could have beaten Nazi Germany is highly optimistic. Especially since in technology, Germany was far ahead of the Soviets. A time would have come when that advantage in technology was decisive.
#157. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser, FormerLurker (#145)
#158. To: BeAChooser (#133)
(Edited)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#159. To: scrapper2 (#145)
BAC, do your own research. I did my research to satisfy my own curiosity. It doesn't take much finger power, BAC.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#160. To: scrapper2, ALL (#145)
I found these directions/options right off wikipedia.
I don't have Dr. Rokke's permission to post links to the pdfs in their entirety.
Dr Rokke was a major in the US Army and former head of the Pentagon’s Depleted Uranium Project, responsible for training US personnel in preparation for Gulf War I in terms of their exposure to environmental hazards including radiation. Dr Rokke holds a PhD in Philosophy and a Master of Science.
I am writing to seek the Consulates assurance that the United States of America has not used and will not use Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions at the Lancelin Defence Training Area (LTDA) in Western Australia.
Thank you for your letter dated July 17 regarding Depleted Uranium . . .
Firstly, let me make clear that the United States, as a matter of policy and practicality, does not use DU munitions at the Australian Lancelin Defence Forces range. DU munitions are seldom used in training anywhere because they are too costly to expend for training. Furthermore, the U.S. military uses the Lancelin Range only infrequently, and only by invitation of the Australian Government. When U.S. forces use the range, it is always jointly with Australia and in compliance with all Australian laws and environmental rules. The U.S. military utilizes Australian environmentalist planners on each and every use.
Secondly, Dr. Doug Rokke has made exaggerated and untrue claims during his visit to Australia. Dr. Rokke has exaggerated his background. He is not, and has never been “the foremost U.S. military expert on DU,” as he was described in the June 18th Canberra Times. He is not a medical doctor. His Ph.D is in education. He earned a Ph.D in Science/Technology Education from the University of Illinois, Urbana in 1992.
If he was finishing his PhD in 1992 he was certainly not, as Hon Dee Margetts claims, running the Gulf War as a major in 1991. He was still at university. The letter continues -
Dr. Rokke did not join the U.S. as a medical officer in 1967, as reported in the Canberra Times. He joined as an airman, an avionics technician. According to the Department of Defense, Dr. Rokke was not “in charge of cleaning up radioactive waste” after the 1991 Gulf War, as was described in a June 18th ABC broadcast. As a First Lieutenant, Dr. Rokke was assigned to the 12th Preventative Medical Detachment of the 330th Medical Brigade prior to and during the war. There were 66 people assigned to the unit; he was the most junior of 14 officers.
Initially, he was responsible for conducting nuclear, biological and chemical training.
In closing, let me reiterate that the U.S. military does not use DU munitions in Lancelin. I urge you to share this information with your constituents and other Members of Parliament.
. . .
Yours sincerely
Oscar De Soto
Consul General of the
United States of America While Dr. Rokke presents himself as an expert, this does not make it so. His role in the 1991 Gulf War, at the US Army Chemical School, and his educational background do not qualify him as an expert on the purported health effects of depleted uranium. . . . It is important to make a clear-cut distinction between Dr. Rokke’s technical qualifications and those of certified medical health physicists who are qualified to assess the medical implications of radiation exposures.
#161. To: hammerdown, ALL (#149)
Dahr_Jamail
#162. To: BeAChooser (#161)
#163. To: Red Jones, ALL (#150)
Doug Rokke is a fellow who spent 30 years in the US Army.
#164. To: BeAChooser (#160)
In closing, let me reiterate that the U.S. military does not use DU munitions in Lancelin. I urge you to share this information with your constituents and other Members of Parliament.
#165. To: scrapper2, diana, robin, ALL (#151)
Stalin, the bloodiest Dictator of the 20th century
In fact, the Brits and Canadians in particular and Europeans generally take offense over the bravado and swagger of chest beating tinhorn macho men like yourself, BAC, who claim it was America that won the war.
America's entry helped but the war was already on the way to being lost by Hitler due to his choice to attack Russia.
The British maintained naval superiority
and had survived the Battle of Britain
- Rommel was getting his butt kicked on the North African front.
And if the US had not jumped in - Russia would have finished off Hitler and soon after Uncle Joe would have fallen
As for Pearl Harbor -HA! -faux reason that caused 300,000 US servicemen deaths including the 2500 at Pearl Harbor
Also, you don't seem too concerned about the millions upon millions of Eastern European Christians who were doomed to Uncle Joe's brutal rule and gulag camps. Oh well.
As for Japan - the Russians beat them up pretty good as well - they crushed their supply lines.
#166. To: BeAChooser (#161)
Now there's an *unbiased* source. (wink)
care to provide any source of his bias, smartass?ROTFLOL
#167. To: scrapper2, diana, ALL (#154)
Nazii-fixated folks like BAC probably view Catholics and Orthodox Christians as being disposable, forgettable, not special so why bother faulting Uncle Joe and the communists?
#168. To: Diana, scrapper2, ALL (#155)
Regimes ruled by insanity can't last.
Most everyone has been taught that all the Germans loved Hitler, and he killed 6 million Jews, which all the gentiles in Europe were so happy about.
he killed millions of people, he imposed impossibly high standards on all the civilians, made them snitch on neighbors, threw people in camps for the slightest infractions, raided other countries, it was a demonic regime and demonic regimes including Japan and Cambodia in the 1970s can only last so long.
Germany and Russia would have continued to fight and could have worn each other down to the point where both countries could have ended up with humane regimes.
#169. To: Diana, scrapper2, ALL (#156)
There would have eventually been uprisings and the nazi regime overthrown,
even without the help of the Soviets.
The German and Austrian people were increasingly miserable in spite of what the History Channel tells us, it would only have been a matter of time, and a very short time at that.
Another thing, will triumphs over technology every time.
#170. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#158)
So you're telling me that there isn't one "health physicist" that finds U- 239 and Plutonium to be harmful to human life?
"I haven't said or implied that at all. Strawman."
That is EXACTLY what you have implied,
Professor Emeritus Washington State University
#171. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#158)
#172. To: BeAChooser (#165)
I hate to tell you this, but your allies against the Iraq war, liberal democRATS and other leftists, are the ones who in the 80's and 90's wanted to appease and learn to live with the Soviet machine. It took a Republican President... to bring it down.
#173. To: BeAChooser, diana (#169)
(Edited)
BAC: Forget the Soviets. They are gone in your alternate world. The Germans defeated them using technology that even the US didn't have at the end of WW2.
#174. To: BeAChooser (#160)
Dr Rokke holds a PhD in Philosophy and a Master of Science.
#175. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, robin, All (#167)
Oh please. Have you nothing but strawmen to offer?
#176. To: BeAChooser (#168)
Really? The Soviet regime lasted the better part of a century.
#177. To: Diana, robin, BeAChooser (#174)
What is his masters in?...That would sound strange for a PhD in education to be an expert on DU but if he has a master's in a related science and did a lot of coursework in that area it would explain it
#178. To: scrapper2 (#177)
#179. To: scrapper2, ALL (#173)
If you believe that the Germans defeated the Russians in WW II
Hitler suffered his greatest military setback of the war in the summer of 1944.
It did not just fuel Stalin's war machinery to fight Hitler
Diana is right - that the "will" of the Iraqi insurgents will ultimately overcome the technology of the foreign occupier.
#180. To: Diana, ALL (#174)
"Dr Rokke holds a PhD in Philosophy and a Master of Science."
What is his masters in?
* Master of Science; University of Illinois; 1986.
* Bachelor of Science; Western Illinois University;
#181. To: Diana, ALL (#176)
They had help and were in a more secure location and larger geographically than Germany.
Your bomb argument may have some merit, I'm not so sure they were that close to us at the time in development
#182. To: scrapper2, ALL (#177)
but he was indeed at one time viewed as an expert in DU matters, toxic chemicals in the environment. In fact, he is named as a participant in a CDC conference publication from 1999
Dr. Rokke was an Ass't Professor at the Dept. of Physical and Earth Sciences, Jacksonville State U
#183. To: robin, ALL (#178)
Dr Doug Rokke, a US health physicist
#184. To: BeAChooser (#170)
(Edited)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#185. To: BeAChooser (#180)
Doctor of Philosophy; University of Illinois; 1992.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#186. To: BeAChooser (#171)
Let's see if you just dismiss or ignore them like you did then.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#187. To: BeAChooser (#160)
Yes, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about Doug Rokke:
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#188. To: Diana, BeAChooser (#174)
That would sound strange for a PhD in education to be an expert on DU
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#189. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#185)
So Doctor of Philosophy could be a Phd in Physics (Doctor of Philosophy in Phyics).
#190. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#188)
People don't get a PhD in Education, they get a Ed.D or D.Ed
Doctor of Education
A PhD is a research degree and applies to a wide range of sciences and humanities.
Doctor of Philosophy
Robert Hoewll, Fort Hays State University, $50.00
Aldo Jackson, Erie County Technical School, $50.00
Edward Mann, The University of Southern Mississippi, $50.00 + $10.00
Connie Munson, Student Membership $15.00
Mabel Okojie, Mississippi State University, 50.00 + $10.00
William Page, Clemson University, $150.00
Greg Petty, The University of Tennessee, $50.00
Ernest Savage, Bowling Green State Univ., $50.00
Jerry Streichler, Bowling Green State Univ., $50.00
Jack Wescott, Ball State University, $150.00
Jamie Harrington, Western Washington University, $50.00
Mark Johnson, Pittsburg State University, $50.00
Gary Lietz, U.S. Department of Energy, $50.00
Edward Mann, Univ. of Southern Mississippi, $150.00
Reynaldo Martinez, Jr., Oklahoma State University $50.00 + $10
Virginia Osgood, University of Central Oklahoma, $50.00
Douglas Rokke, $50.00 + $10.00
Thomas Walker, Temple University, $50.00 + $10.00
Tom Bell, Millersville University, $50.00
.
.
.