[01010]

As far as I recall the majority of the details have been kicking about the public domain since the whole farce began.

[RandomTiger]

Originally posted by Kazan
that information has 100% veracity

I cant say I know about the figures and stuff but the general story was reported on the BBC and in Michael Moore's book I seem to remember.

Online you can get away with anything but if its in print or reported by a company like the BBC then if you are talking crap Bush would be able to sue you into the ground so its very likely to be accurate.

[Rictor]

Bob:

So, you start of with the assumption that the government is honest and fair and loves every special unique snowflake in this world. Any time that someone contradicts the government, they're just sensationalists and looking for a quick buck. Right.

And please explain to me how you can, for example, refute the fact that Bush stole the election. The evidence has been thoroughly documented. The evidence is not biased. Its government papers, voting records and such. Official documents in their unaltered state.

But ofcourse, its not evidence if the goverment says it not.

[Rictor]

Here's the best one from the BushFlash website. At least, in my opinion.

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

[Kazan]

Just for reference: Ignore his DU ones, he is talking out of his arse on those

Depleted Uranium is U-238 -- it has a half life of 4.3 billion years (which means it's BARELY radioactive) and is the most abudant heavy radioisotype on the planet - you are constantly exposed to certain levels of it.

The Entire U-238 decay chain is alpha particle emission - alpha particles are blocked by a piece of paper, your skin, THE AIR [they travel less than 5 meters through normal density air before being interecepted by a particle] -- an alpha particle is two protons and new neutrons

(only in fission reactions does U-283 give off "hard radiation" in the form of gamma)


The chemical properties of uranium are far more of a hazard than it's radiological properties - and it's chemical properties wouldn't cause deformed babies or cancer.


In short: his DU information is incorrect and unfounded

(I never said all his flashes were good)

[Rictor]

Well, since I have only a very rudimentary knowledge of nuclear emmisions (such as would be learned in a highschool chemistry class), I really can't know who is right or wrong on any such matter.

But what about his figures citing an enormous rise in birth defects and cancer at times when DU was used? It seems unlikely he's pulling those stats out of his ass.

What I can say with a very high degree of certainty is that there has been a marked increase in DU-related ailments in Yugoslvia since the '99 bombing. And if you accept his figures for tonnes of DU used, Yugoslavia made out far better than Iraq.

_____

I love the flash. Very good use of video techniques and music. Watched most of the other ones and I'm liking it.

[Deepblue]

Originally posted by Kazan

right now our votes are better spent voting strategically to get bush out of office

If you do that you might just end up with someone worse. (wouldn't be too hard to do)

Originally posted by Kazan
In short: his DU information is incorrect and unfounded

Are you sure that his other information is correct?

And after seeing this I really don't think I will believe this guy when he is so obviously someone who discriminates, nay HATES because of political views. In other words: Slime. He doesn't even deserve the slightest respect.

[Deepblue]

Originally posted by Kazan
Bobboau: Your argumentum is MOOT

The information in the flash is widely known public records

Linky? (to a reliable unbiased source)

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Kazan
Just for reference: Ignore his DU ones, he is talking out of his arse on those

Depleted Uranium is U-238 -- it has a half life of 4.3 billion years (which means it's BARELY radioactive) and is the most abudant heavy radioisotype on the planet - you are constantly exposed to certain levels of it.

The Entire U-238 decay chain is alpha particle emission - alpha particles are blocked by a piece of paper, your skin, THE AIR [they travel less than 5 meters through normal density air before being interecepted by a particle] -- an alpha particle is two protons and new neutrons

(only in fission reactions does U-283 give off "hard radiation" in the form of gamma)


The chemical properties of uranium are far more of a hazard than it's radiological properties - and it's chemical properties wouldn't cause deformed babies or cancer.


In short: his DU information is incorrect and unfounded

(I never said all his flashes were good)

Kazan you ignore the danger of breathing in uranium dust.  Without skin to block it their is a significant danger of contracting lung cancer.

IIRC studies in Japan have found that the dangers of radiation from alpha partices were underestimated.

[Rictor]

So? Many, many Republicans hate Dmeocrats and Liberals, going so far as to call Liberalism a mental disorder and a cancer on America. But I don't hear anyone (or more specifically, you) complaining.

But, hey, maybe I got it all wrong. Who knows.

[Deepblue]

Erm. I didnt say any names, and you are right. Anyone who hates like that is SLIME. However I did do a search for a democrat hate mongering site and I couldnt find one. Interesting no?

[Deepblue]

Originally posted by Rictor

But, hey, maybe I got it all wrong. Who knows.

yes, you did.

[Kazan]

karajorma: good point - but that is from the's chemical properties - and more importantly it's physical size property -- like asbestos dust there


Deepblue: some of his information is acurate - not much of it, the GTA flash is one of the accurate ones

Rictor: let's see, just before we invaded in 1991 Saddam was using chemical weapons on his own people - yep that had NOTHING to do with it

[Rictor]

He used chemical weapons. Once. On the Kurds. The Kurds are not his own people, they are his enemies. Both parties can attest to that.

Do you think that gassing 5000 Kurds in the North could have any serious effects on a sizeable portion of the Iraqi population, most living several hudred miles away from the site where the bio weapons were used? Or could it possibly be the tonnes of DU dropped.

I punch someone in the arm. You shoot them in the head. And then you say that it is most likely my attack that killed him. Sorry, but that arguement doesn't hold water. I'm not saying that Saddam using bio weapons was not a factor in those deaths, just that it was miniscule compared to the DU and other crap used in Desert Storm and Iraq 2003.

_________


Deepblue: I'm currently working on something which has to be printed today to be ready tommorow. Give me a day or so and I'll show you what hate mongering really is.

____

I have no interest in getting into the old Dem vs Rep arguement...again. I doubt anything will be resolved or that anyone involved will change their minds. However feel free to prove me wrong :D

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
karajorma: good point - but that is from the's chemical properties - and more importantly it's physical size property -- like asbestos dust there


Deepblue: some of his information is acurate - not much of it, the GTA flash is one of the accurate ones

Rictor: let's see, just before we invaded in 1991 Saddam was using chemical weapons on his own people - yep that had NOTHING to do with it

Well, on Kurds.  Could be an important distinction, there...

That said, the WHO has said that there is no concrete evidence of a link between the use DU ammunition and cancer rates in Yugoslavia, because there are insufficient medical records to make a comparison - in other words, there is no real way to even prove rates have changed, let alone to connect to DU.

[Kazan]

several EU studies have shown that DU has no harmful effects (other than being a bullet)


furthermore we're exposed to uranium EVERY DAY - it's EVERYWHERE just not in significant concentrations

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
several EU studies have shown that DU has harmful effects (other than being a bullet)

Well, yes - both the Us and UK acknowledge the harmful effects (the UK ihas offered to assist cleanup of DU in Iraq, although the US hasn't).

I was making the point that,  in the specific example of Yugolsavia, there's no evidence to prove a direct link between use of DU and cancer rates.  

Doesn't mean there isn't, of course.

[Kazan]

aldo -- DOH i left a word out "NO"

[Rictor]

Aldo, could I perhaps ask you a question. Is it intentional that you seem to take a special joy in asserting that the US (and NATO) acted with the utmost care and justice in its military dealing with Yugoslavia. Because you seem to do it an awful lot.

Usually, you right up there with everyone else shouting "Death to Bush", but with Yugoslavia you seem to really get a kick out of laying the blame squarely at the feet of the victims. Why the double standard? I mean, do you really believe that in one scenario the US are devils, and in the other they're angels. You have no problem saying that the US did this and this and this in Iraq, and are assholes because of it, but when Yugoslvia is brought up, you deny any wrongdoing on behalf of the agressor (US and NATO).

To me, it seems to be a testament to Billy's mastery of public relations and misdirection. Bush is so heavy-handed that you can't help but notice. But Clinton, he was more devious. He actually got most of the Western world to tote the party line, despite the fact that the circumstances surrounding Kosovo 99 were not that different than those surrounding Iraq 2003.

One day, when I have the time, I'll set you staright. As you might imagine, I take particular offence to lies being propagated when its is my country that is the subject of those lies.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
Aldo, could I perhaps ask you a question. Is it intentional that you seem to take a special joy in asserting that the US (and NATO) acted with the utmost care and justice in its military dealing with Yugoslavia. Because you seem to do it an awful lot.

Usually, you right up there with everyone else shouting "Death to Bush", but with Yugoslavia you seem to really get a kick out of laying the blame squarely at the feet of the victims. Why the double standard? I mean, do you really believe that in one scenario the US are devils, and in the other they're angels. You have no problem saying that the US did this and this and this in Iraq, and are assholes because of it, but when Yugoslvia is brought up, you deny any wrongdoing on behalf of the agressor (US and NATO).

To me, it seems to be a testament to Billy's mastery of public relations and misdirection. Bush is so heavy-handed that you can't help but notice. But Clinton, he was more devious. He actually got most of the Western world to tote the party line, despite the fact that the circumstances surrounding Kosovo 99 were not that different than those surrounding Iraq 2003.

One day, when I have the time, I'll set you staright. As you might imagine, I take particular offence to lies being propagated when its is my country that is the subject of those lies.

It's not hard to understand. - I take exception to the massacre of ethnic groups under the pretence of national security.

  Frankly, I'm surprised you seem to think Milosevic was incapable of such an act, given his history and nature.   But I'm sure the forthcoming verdict in the Hague will justify my position.

 My only dissapointment was that NATO was ordered (to reduce possible losses) to use high-level bombing tactics instead of more dangerous-but-also-more-accurate-low-level attacks.