S
fttrsbeerwench
New Member
I have a friend who returned home with several of those symptoms.... His "bacterial infection", which caused huge lesions on his whole body still flares up from time to time.
These guys go over there to do a service to their country, and yes it is sad that young lives will be cut short or left in ruins as a result of it all.
These guys go over there to do a service to their country, and yes it is sad that young lives will be cut short or left in ruins as a result of it all.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I wonder how many studies have been done...
...to look into the effectives of enemy strongholds or tanks that survived initial engagement and what they did to our troops? Did their return fire induce nausea? Head aches? Joint pain? Failed plumbing? Maybe they just killed our folks out right?
I'm not insensitive to the composition of the weapons we use. Obviously, these weapons are not widespread problems or we'd have significant numbers, hundreds and thousands, suffering these ill effects.
In the mean time, does the rapidity in which a depleted uranium shell destroys an enemy tank or bunker, thereby saving wounds and death on our part, justify some level of risk?
I mean, this is war, the ugliest business, in and of itself, mankind has ever come up with. From the day of rocks and sticks, man has sought better, stronger, faster means of delivering death and destruction to an enemy while limiting his own exposure to same.
To put in bluntly, if these guys are all sick, is their misery better than what would have been expected to happen to how many more troops if we'd not used depleted uranium? Is there a better weapon now? If it should be replaced, by all means, but there is another side to the ledger sheet; casualties prevented. That is the ugly, brutal math of war.
...to look into the effectives of enemy strongholds or tanks that survived initial engagement and what they did to our troops? Did their return fire induce nausea? Head aches? Joint pain? Failed plumbing? Maybe they just killed our folks out right?
I'm not insensitive to the composition of the weapons we use. Obviously, these weapons are not widespread problems or we'd have significant numbers, hundreds and thousands, suffering these ill effects.
In the mean time, does the rapidity in which a depleted uranium shell destroys an enemy tank or bunker, thereby saving wounds and death on our part, justify some level of risk?
I mean, this is war, the ugliest business, in and of itself, mankind has ever come up with. From the day of rocks and sticks, man has sought better, stronger, faster means of delivering death and destruction to an enemy while limiting his own exposure to same.
To put in bluntly, if these guys are all sick, is their misery better than what would have been expected to happen to how many more troops if we'd not used depleted uranium? Is there a better weapon now? If it should be replaced, by all means, but there is another side to the ledger sheet; casualties prevented. That is the ugly, brutal math of war.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Larry Gude said:
I agree 100%
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Kyle said:
I have to admit I like your thinking here. We are facing an enemy who hides itself among "peaceful civilians", who either are aiding and giving comfort to them in their extremist views, or are turning their heads the other way, denying that they are living amongst them.
Al Qaeda and the Hezbollah come to mind. Why not set a precedence here, and take them all out, starting with OBL. I'm pretty sure they intel guys know where he's hold up, so why not toss in a tactical nuke and rid the world of this guy?
S
slaphappynmd
Guest
And when has the media ever told the whole story, just like the oil spill along Lebanons coast, eventhough it rivals the Exxon Valdez spill, it is staying largely underwraps. I guess when Bush and Israel decided to bomb the hell out of Lebanon over 2 soldiers, they weren't expecting that to happen. heh.
Larry Gude said:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
There is ZERO argument...
...to be made in NOT using neutron weapons; low physical destruction, rapidly re-inhabitable and real safe for our side. Oh yeah, wipes bad guys out in droves.
If an enemy is worth fighting, don't we owe him our very best? He'd do the same for us. Anything less is an insult.
Kyle said:
...to be made in NOT using neutron weapons; low physical destruction, rapidly re-inhabitable and real safe for our side. Oh yeah, wipes bad guys out in droves.
If an enemy is worth fighting, don't we owe him our very best? He'd do the same for us. Anything less is an insult.