Because it needs it, I pit The War in Iraq

[42fish]

@Princhester

You keep saying this as if it is somehow relevant, but no one here is denying it, nor does it any way assist with the discussion. What the fuck is your point?

His point is to stir up shit & get attention. Face it, if the board skewed right, he’d happily be doing a Der Trihs imitation instead.

[Loach]

@mlees

I know that, sir.

I’m trying to figure out where the author of the quoted article came up with the number. See my previous posts on this topic, particularly the one three posts before the one you quoted above.

I can not refute the numbers of munitions used since I don’t have the actual number. But I find it highly unlikely that much DU has been used in the last few years. DU has a very specific purpose. To go through armor. DU is used because of it’s density, not some special radioactive or explosive properties. It has none. It is just a heavy dart. In fact tank sabot rounds are also called kinetic energy rounds. It is a small dense object travelling at a very high rate of speed. After the Iraqi army lost all it’s tanks there was very little use for DU. I would be surprised if the M1s even carry many of them now at all. A sabot round would be pretty ineffective against a building or bunker. It would just poke a small hole in it. About the only DU I can still see being used is the 30mm rounds from an Apache’s chaingun. DU is just not effective unless you are fighting an armored force. Small arms rounds have no DU. Shaped charge rounds (HEAT) have no DU. Gravity bombs have no DU. It just seems to me someone is assuming that DU is some sort of super substance that we put in every munition. If the round is designed to blow up, no DU. If the round does not blow up and needs to go fast and be dense (F=MA) then they use DU.

[mlees]

@Loach

I can not refute the numbers of munitions used since I don’t have the actual number. But I find it highly unlikely that much DU has been used in the last few years. DU has a very specific purpose. To go through armor. DU is used because of it’s density, not some special radioactive or explosive properties. It has none. It is just a heavy dart. In fact tank sabot rounds are also called kinetic energy rounds. It is a small dense object travelling at a very high rate of speed. After the Iraqi army lost all it’s tanks there was very little use for DU. I would be surprised if the M1s even carry many of them now at all. A sabot round would be pretty ineffective against a building or bunker. It would just poke a small hole in it. About the only DU I can still see being used is the 30mm rounds from an Apache’s chaingun. DU is just not effective unless you are fighting an armored force. Small arms rounds have no DU. Shaped charge rounds (HEAT) have no DU. Gravity bombs have no DU. It just seems to me someone is assuming that DU is some sort of super substance that we put in every munition. If the round is designed to blow up, no DU. If the round does not blow up and needs to go fast and be dense (F=MA) then they use DU.

I agree. The wiki article on DU I linked earlier listed what weapons systems the US uses the stuff in.

But I have no idea how much DU we might have used in 2003, I wouldn’t know where to go to provide a counter-cite. So I left that unchallenged.

What I could do was try to challenge the math as presented.

In the end, I think the article, as written, wanted to evoke outrage.

The truth (about Iraq) is tragic enough, I don’t know why someone had to go and invent more stuff to be outraged about.

I don’t know how bad DU actually is in regards to health risks, but the main purpose, as you state, for the stuff is armor penetration. The attempt to make the stuff illegal is based on chemical warfare laws, but DU doesn’t fit that.

The situation is similar to that presented by Agent Orange. The purpose of that stuff was to knock down foliage concealing the enemy. Not as a direct weapon against the enemy. But the stuff had health risks that showed up later, and was ultimately removed from the US inventory. (It took time to get the DoD to admit the health risks, admit the mistake, and set it right.) I suspect DU might follow that same pattern some time in the future.

[Cervaise]

@Princhester

You keep saying this as if it is somehow relevant, but no one here is denying it, nor does it any way assist with the discussion. What the fuck is your point?

He’s found a chain, and he’s yanking it for all it’s worth. Same old same old. He’ll keep doing it until he thinks he’s attracted unwanted attention from the authorities, at which point he’ll do a quick fade and lay low for a few days, before beginning his search for the next chain.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@BrainGlutton

Whether God exists or not is a scientific question (though likely not one science can ever actually resolve). Ethical standards are not. That’s the difference between an “is” and an “ought.”

So is there an actual, objective good or not? If there is, it is an is question. If there is not, then it is just a subjective choice.

(Even if there is not an absolute, objective good, it is still an is question just it is an is question even if there is not a god.)

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@Princhester

You keep saying this as if it is somehow relevant, but no one here is denying it, nor does it any way assist with the discussion. What the fuck is your point?

People are denying it.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@ArrMatey!

As for the hammering you do on the movie quote… How about the shredding of the constitution? If you’re going to slam the quote, have the guts to slam the whole thing. My assumption is you know what sort-of can of worms you’ll be opening if you do.

The parts I focused on are not even debatable. There are no children being herded into stadiums. There are not soldiers on the street. Anyone who perceives the US in such a manner is ignorant of reality. Wouldn’t you agree?

In case you’ve forgotten the rest of the quote:

[H]ave Americans looking over their shoulders? Bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit? Because if we torture him, General, we do that and everything we have fought, and bled, and died for is over. And they’ve won. They’ve already won!

Tell me the war hasn’t increased fear in America. Tell me people aren’t looking over their shoulders.

The only fear I have seen increase in America was from 9/11. Can you give some specific examples of the war in Iraq increasing fear.

Tell me that we haven’t engaged in activities that people consider torture, or that laws haven’t been bent.

I don’t care if people consider it torture. I can if it is legally torture. I also don’t care if law are bent. I care if they are broken.

Tell me it with a straight face. THIS is what foreigners see about us now. THIS is what I’m ashamed of.

If this is all foreigners see, then it is their own damn fault. I do not see the British as a bunch of hateful murders because of what happened to de Menezes. Mistakes are made. No country will be perfect.

This and the notion that splitting hairs on definitions of torture, of splitting hairs on matters of legal or illegal survailence, of splitting hairs when it comes to simply throwing citizens’ rights out the window… That’s what is making perception of this country what it is, and it’s what I’m ashamed of.

Legal questions always involve hairsplitting. All these complaints are extremely vague. And for the most part, they have nothing to do with Iraq. The real connection is that the fear created by 9/11 was used to increase support for the Iraq war. But, Iraq was not the cause of the fear.

Is that a good enough answer to your question? Or shall we only refute half of the quote that I used from a movie as illustration to my point?

No, because you still claim that there is a perception of America that is blatantly false. The perception is the problem, not the reality.

[Omegaman]

@Cervaise

He’s found a chain, and he’s yanking it for all it’s worth. Same old same old. He’ll keep doing it until he thinks he’s attracted unwanted attention from the authorities, at which point he’ll do a quick fade and lay low for a few days, before beginning his search for the next chain.

I think your mistaken there, my friend. This is the first troll I have ever encountered that is so adept at skirting the rules that mods can do nothing about him. I’m giving him way more credit than he actually deserves, and the attention he so desperatly craves. Honestly I believe him to be a garden variety child molestor. I wouldn’t scrape him off the bottom of my boot, well unless I was going to walk on carpet.

[Cluricaun]

@Omegaman

This is the first troll I have ever encountered that is so adept at skirting the rules that mods can do nothing about him.

Fear not, smarter and craftier folk than him have been tossed out of here before. Matter of time my man, matter of time.

[marshmallow]

@Santo Rugger

With any luck, continued “crying like a baby” will remind people like marshmallow, who may not follow the news like a hawk, but still listens to, and has discussions with, people who are disgusted with our current administration, and help said people make the right decision in November.

Thanks for the laughs.

[Jamaika_a_jamaikaiake]

There are not soldiers on the street.

The national guard patrols the trains I use on my commute. There are soldiers on the streets here.

[RedFury]

E-mail response from Mr Philip N. Ledoux on how he got the numbers in the DU article being discussed:

@Mr Ledoux

**RedFury,

It might be that the objectors feel that we are in Iraq justifiably. The below information was created to get people to think about how useless and horrific war actually is when put into the correct terms.

The basic premise was based on the fact that only 1/2 of the DU is vaporized when used as armament penetrators, etc. In other words, 1/2 of the ammunition used lays around as a cake of DU, which would be dangerous to children playing with it, or ignorant locals handling it. That is totally discounted in the article. We shot off 1,820 tons (American) in Iraq. If the reader questions that, the numbers can be easily adjusted. These numbers were what I had found on the internet. I used 1,000 kilograms to equal 1 American Ton. That figure might be low, I was not after accuracy to the 16th decimal point. In nuclear work you often need quick, close enough answers; and this conversion falls into that category, plus it was something the average person could work with easily in doing conversions. So, if the reader agrees that we used 1,820 American Tons of DU in Iraq, it converts to 1,820,000 kilograms (thousands of grams). Only half is dangerously vaporized so a simple division by 2 = 920,000 kilograms.

The problem now becomes one of using a base that everyone understands. The first A-bomb weighed 64 kilograms (Scientists use metric, that’s around 30 pounds; 2 pounds of butter at the store in America is 1 “kilo” in Europe, meaning “kilogram”. An Atomic Bomb vaporizes almost all of its active ingredients. So, how do we relate on atomic bomb to DU which is atomic bomb waste generated in the production of an a-bomb? The waste products are nearly identical to atomic fall-out. Thusly it seemed rather logical to divide that DU used by 64 which would give us some kind of a relative scale to comprehend what we are talking about. 910,000 divided by 64 gives us something like 14,000 bombs.

Granted, DU is not like discharging an atomic bomb! Yet the results of using DU are very similar to atomic bomb fall-out. So, I took an area of land the size of Iraq, did simple math to demonstrate what the results would be of fall out from bombs every 3 1/2 miles (no explosions) all equating to our original 910,000 kilograms of vaporized DU. I’ve been known to make math mistakes before, did I make an error in land acreage vs. amount of fall-out? I was trying to create a mental visual that an average person could follow, which I’ve never seen written out before.

Philip N. Ledoux**

[Squink]

Mr. Ledoux:
The first A-bomb weighed 64 kilograms (Scientists use metric, that’s around 30 pounds;

I hope Mr. Ledoux isn’t calculating any orbits for Mars probes.

[RedFury]

@Squink

I hope Mr. Ledoux isn’t calculating any orbits for Mars probes.

Saw that as well. A kg is roughly 2.2 lbs. thus that figure should be about 141 lbs. However, that mistake aside (he does correct it in the butter comparison) how do the rest of his figures hold-up given his explanations?

[Princhester]

@Two and a Half Inches of Fun

People are denying it.

Who? Give me some post numbers.

[Siam_Sam]

@RedFury

A kg is roughly 2.2 lbs.

Actually, a kilogram is exactly 2.2 pounds.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@Princhester

Who? Give me some post numbers.

127, 133, 136, 138.

Now, you could say they are less denying my position than distorting it, but they are hardly agreeing.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@Siam Sam

Actually, a kilogram is exactly 2.2 pounds.

No, it is not. A kilogram weighs slightly more than 2.2 pounds. Closer to:

2.20462262 pounds

Edit- 1 pound weighs exactly 0.45359237 kilograms

[Siam_Sam]

@Two and a Half Inches of Fun

No, it is not. A kilogram weighs slightly more than 2.2 pounds. Closer to:

2.20462262 pounds

Really? I thought the kilogram/pound measurement was exact, 2.2 pounds to the kilo, unlike, say, miles and kilometers.

[RedFury]

@Siam Sam

Really? I thought the kilogram/pound measurement was exact, 2.2 pounds to the kilo, unlike, say, miles and kilometers.

No. I was correct the first time. There are exactly 2.20462262 pounds to a kilo.

</end nitpick>