The circumstantial evidence suggests that they may, though there is no proof yet.
But several European countries supplying peacekeeping troops to serve in the former Yugoslavia have told them not to eat local produce or to drink the water.
Several years ago a report by the US Army Environmental Policy Institute said: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological. Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposures."
It is not clear whether this warning reached all the troops serving in Kosovo, during and after the war, or whether it was intended to reach them. It certainly did not reach civilians there or in Iraq. Yet they are as exposed to any harmful effects of DU as the troops themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1101447.stm
But several European countries supplying peacekeeping troops to serve in the former Yugoslavia have told them not to eat local produce or to drink the water.
Several years ago a report by the US Army Environmental Policy Institute said: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological. Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposures."
It is not clear whether this warning reached all the troops serving in Kosovo, during and after the war, or whether it was intended to reach them. It certainly did not reach civilians there or in Iraq. Yet they are as exposed to any harmful effects of DU as the troops themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1101447.stm
So basically 2.5 more years of US troops dying before the civil war begins and consumes whatever pathetically weak Iraqi security force is installed.....
"Shock and awe" turns into Shock....and aw $hit.....
Those thinktanks that JinnRikki wrote about earlier in this thread.......the politicians back in '92 had a better grasp of how impossible the situation would be for a successful invasion......Cheney even mentioned the impracticality of it all......too bad these same politicians got blinded by greed and war profiteering and traded common sense for American military blood and the almighty dollar....
"Shock and awe" turns into Shock....and aw $hit.....
Those thinktanks that JinnRikki wrote about earlier in this thread.......the politicians back in '92 had a better grasp of how impossible the situation would be for a successful invasion......Cheney even mentioned the impracticality of it all......too bad these same politicians got blinded by greed and war profiteering and traded common sense for American military blood and the almighty dollar....
JR, the credibility of your think-tank counter was instantly cut at the knees once Vietnam was mentioned. The Left can't seem to realize that Iraq isn't Vietnam. The U.S. isn't campaigning to end domination of one Iraqi Muslim faction or another. We're campaigning to gain time whilst the Iraqi central government is built up and can then take over the dirty work (with heavy-weapon support from us...in the future).
In Vietnam, we were fighting the war FOR a series of corrupt Saigon governments. Not so in Iraq. The exit-strategy in Iraq was there from the beginning. Iraq is now eliminated as a regional threat from the geopolitical standpoint. As long as its internal politics are kept just that, internal, we have a major victory on our hands. Also...unlike the Saigon war, we're not going to cut and run and leave them without supplies, ammo and money. The Baghdad government will be new, not the trash we inherited in Vietnam. Will it be perfect? Nope. Is our own government rife with corruption and babu-style bureaucrats? Yup. Yet I still believe Iraq will become a full-fledged member of the world's nations...warts and all.
Militant Islam exists...and will be a thorn in the side of Iraq, but not a major one, and not forever. It's not now...since the best they can do are occasional roadside bombings. I don't believe the insurgency is purely militant Islam, nor just the grouchy ex-Ba'athists. There is a mix of all different groups with varying aims...and that hurts them more than it helps. There is not a national liberation front simply because they're not occupied in the traditional sense. Hell...a third or more of Iraq is under U.S.-friendly Kurdish control.
Part of me wonders if it might not be a bad thing to allow the Iraqi majority to have a free-hand at putting down the insurgency. Maybe it's time the world averted it's eyes while they use whatever methods they think will end the fighting (just like Lincoln sent Sherman on a brutal campaign). Should the Iraqis not do the same? I dunno. It would be a brief civil war that would settle down into occasional secretarian violence. If that's what it becomes, I still believe it's a victory because the nation itself would be relatively stable and not exporting terror.
Anyways, comparison between Iraq and Vietnam are lazy and intellectually dishonest. Moral and historic equivilency on such a scale doesn't hold water.
In Vietnam, we were fighting the war FOR a series of corrupt Saigon governments. Not so in Iraq. The exit-strategy in Iraq was there from the beginning. Iraq is now eliminated as a regional threat from the geopolitical standpoint. As long as its internal politics are kept just that, internal, we have a major victory on our hands. Also...unlike the Saigon war, we're not going to cut and run and leave them without supplies, ammo and money. The Baghdad government will be new, not the trash we inherited in Vietnam. Will it be perfect? Nope. Is our own government rife with corruption and babu-style bureaucrats? Yup. Yet I still believe Iraq will become a full-fledged member of the world's nations...warts and all.
Militant Islam exists...and will be a thorn in the side of Iraq, but not a major one, and not forever. It's not now...since the best they can do are occasional roadside bombings. I don't believe the insurgency is purely militant Islam, nor just the grouchy ex-Ba'athists. There is a mix of all different groups with varying aims...and that hurts them more than it helps. There is not a national liberation front simply because they're not occupied in the traditional sense. Hell...a third or more of Iraq is under U.S.-friendly Kurdish control.
Part of me wonders if it might not be a bad thing to allow the Iraqi majority to have a free-hand at putting down the insurgency. Maybe it's time the world averted it's eyes while they use whatever methods they think will end the fighting (just like Lincoln sent Sherman on a brutal campaign). Should the Iraqis not do the same? I dunno. It would be a brief civil war that would settle down into occasional secretarian violence. If that's what it becomes, I still believe it's a victory because the nation itself would be relatively stable and not exporting terror.
Anyways, comparison between Iraq and Vietnam are lazy and intellectually dishonest. Moral and historic equivilency on such a scale doesn't hold water.
JD.
As soon as insurgents pop up somewhere, the Iraqi police etc unass the area.
Iraq is just like Vietnam insofar that the US has this miguided belief that its puppet regime is as motivated as those insurgents.
And just like in Vietnam, as soon as you guys leave the entire pile of nonsense will fall on its ass, and then the locals will get on with their lives and find thier own destiny.
Heck. You already fooked it up in Iran, so whats so different this time round?
As soon as insurgents pop up somewhere, the Iraqi police etc unass the area.
Iraq is just like Vietnam insofar that the US has this miguided belief that its puppet regime is as motivated as those insurgents.
And just like in Vietnam, as soon as you guys leave the entire pile of nonsense will fall on its ass, and then the locals will get on with their lives and find thier own destiny.
Heck. You already fooked it up in Iran, so whats so different this time round?
