# Canadians going to Iraq



## Fusaki (27 Dec 2002)

Global News website

whats up?


----------



## Armymedic (27 Dec 2002)

Gents,
Sounds like a bit of reporting the facts based on the rumour mill. Note the say no warning orders given, yet....key word "yet‘. Its not for sure, but as all of our foriegn policy for the military seems to be dictated by whats on CNN this week, it will probably happen. To what laughable extent...who knows. I give less then 40% that they will send a Infantry battlegroup (like Afgh) to a real shooting war, but who knows, Chretian doesn‘t like to look bad....


----------



## FredDaHead (28 Dec 2002)

Isn‘t the US warming up a battlegroup or two to be ready within 96 hours? ...And knowing Cretin, we‘ll probably follow.

"On the list were ground troops, commandos from Joint Task Force 2, CF18 fighter aircraft and ships." (from the article)

CF18s? Why don‘t they just call McDonnell Douglas and ask for spare parts? ...And how are we gonna provide ships for both the war on terror and Iraq? ..As for JTF2 and ground troops, anybody care to guess what our guys will be asked to do?


----------



## portcullisguy (28 Dec 2002)

Discussing the differences (similarities?) between the Yanks and our guys the other day with a work colleague (Ex-2Lt P RES), he mentioned that the Americans tend to turn tail and run after they start losing too many of their lads.

We are now facing the very real possibility of the U.S. fighting two wars at the same time -- Iraq, which is only a matter of weeks or possibly days away from turning into a full-blown shooting conflict -- and North Korea.

North Korea is especially interesting.  They have basically done the same thing as Iraq -- defied the United Nations by admitting they have continued their nuclear program since 1994 when they told the world they had stopped, and now by expelling international atomic energy inspectors, removing seals and cameras, and ordering up 2,000 fresh uranium fuel rods to add to their 8,000 spent ones.  They possess enough nuclear material to make several fissionable warheads per month, once they get the reactors going, AND they possess the means to deliver them as far away as Japan and India.

Korea, if we remember our history books, has already gone to war with the western world once.  In fact, if I remember correctly, the war never ended.  A state of cease fire exists, and there is a DMZ separating North from South.

It is conceivable that the U.S. will also call upon the usual suspects to assist in dealing with this far more pressing and urgent crisis.  Will Canada get the call?  Maybe?  But if we commit to Iraq at the same time, where are we going to find the troops?

What happens when the 1 million-strong North Korean army starts imposing their favourable odds on the battlefield on our troops?  The Americans will surely last longer than us.  But we will probably risk several casualties as well.  While every soldier understands this and accepts it, the rest of Canada probably doesn‘t share the same sentiment.

And, friendly body counts are bad for re-election.

I think I see us giving this one a miss, which is a shame, because Canada discharged its duties in Korea in the 1950s with honour, and I‘d say the risk Korea poses to the world is far greater than Iraq‘s immediate threat.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Dec 2002)

I think in these times it‘s totally counterproductive, not to mention just plain bad form, to heep derision on our allies the way your neophite collegue has done. His real world experience is sorely lacking. Taking counsel from an EX- 2Lt PRes is NOT the path to wisdom and enlightenment. Especially since you just started with the military. Listen politely, and store it away, no need to repeat unsubstantiated drivel. There will always be the left leaning bleeding hearts looking for an out or excuse.

As to what will happen, who knows. We‘ll have to wait and see. There‘s lots of others further up the food chain and with a lot better intel than the newspapers and CNN. Let them gather the facts and make the descisions. We‘ll go where they tell us and do our best work, under equipped and under manned if necessary.


----------



## ArmyAl (28 Dec 2002)

4 scarest things to hear from troops
1. Pvt saying " well from what I learned"
2. Capt saying " I‘ll get back to you on that"
3. 2LT saying " from my experence"
4. Sgt saying " TRUST ME SIR "

What the ****  does your 2LT buddy know?


----------



## 2Lt_Martin (28 Dec 2002)

> What happens when the 1 million-strong North Korean army starts imposing their favourable odds on the battlefield on our troops? The Americans will surely last longer than us. But we will probably risk several casualties as well. While every soldier understands this and accepts it, the rest of Canada probably doesn‘t share the same sentiment.


Please correct me if I‘m wrong but when a "battle group" engages in a conflict do they not fight together. Example: our snipers and US Special Forces in Afghanistan. 

Having never been on a tour or in combat myself I am looking for advice/input not trying to start a posting war.

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Dec 2002)

I like that post ArmyAl.

One of my favorite all time quotes from anyone in the military was having a brand new master corporal (Who had about a year and a half in the military-reserves)  say during a class "In my experence with the military"
It was classic.


----------



## Airghardt (30 Dec 2002)

Now a days the (Western) world has taken on a anti war approach. Take a look for instance the movie: "Black Hawk Down". At the end of the film it showed how horrible it was, and no one ever wanted to go back to war (now don‘t get me wrong i‘m not saying it‘s cool and great, and that it wasn‘t horrible, but it‘s not as bad as they showed it) That movie, like any war movie made in the past few years, in the end turns into an anti war movie. We are being fed this subliminal message all the time by any and every form of the media. We have lost all connections with the "fighting spirit" of the heady days of World War 2, where we knew what war meant, what it‘s costs were, but we were determined to win. Now, since Vietnam, we think every conflict we enter shall become another Vietnam. We begin to question what it is we are fighting for. Maybe Vietnam was not the best example of fighting a just war, but it was there, now we question Iraq, North Korea, is it really worth sending our young men (and these days) women into battle to die for some unkown cause? the reallity is that we never see why we are at war until it stirkes home. Like 9-11 for instance: had Canada been the target our stance would have been far more sevear, and our people not so "withdrawn" from taking a tougher stance on terroists. but still even though the threat is there we tend to dismiss it still. Osama has put out a tape a few months ago stating that Canada is on the hit list for future terorist attacks. Yet the facts have not stuck still. so what does it take for us to drop the reason for this petty fear that we have of a threat we think cannot harm us right now (ie Iraq or N. Korea, we don‘t know they don‘t have ICBM capabilities) and take a hard stance like we have done for the axis forces 60 years ago, and rid this world of these threats. I believe it is Cretien, he is too afraid to rock the boat, he is a sheep, he follows the U.S. like they are the shepard, he only puts in just the bear minimum and calls this our great contribution. maybe if he would allocate more money to the military rather than his personal trasportation (the pair of 50 million dollar jets he has), we would be able to send more troops 9or send troops period!) and be able to sustain them, not relying on the Americans, or Air Canada to get us everywhere...

i believe that is enough...  :fifty:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2002)

To paraphrase:

Those that beat their swords into plowshares eventually end up working in the fields of those who didn‘t.

Just a thought


----------



## Pugil (30 Dec 2002)

##We have lost all connections with the "fighting spirit" of the heady days of World War 2, where we knew what war meant, what it‘s costs were, but we were determined to win##

Correct me if im wrong, I guess you never been to a war. War is not about honnour, prestige or integrity. Looks at the veterans of all the wars that Canada fought, most of them are more toward peace than war. You dont know what war is about until you experienced yourself nevermind the stories of your grand-fathers in ww2 or Hollywood movies. I find in America the tend to have a hawkish attitude toward rogue states, it is because we have never been bomb by a foreign states or occupied, we never tasted whats humiliation. Look at Europe, now a days they only use force at last resort because they know what the word war involves.  I will answer to any call if Canada needs me, I will fight a war if necessary but I prefer Canada to stay away from US simplistic view of the world with their axis of evil..to invade country for oil, interest and to test new weapons..


----------



## Jungle (30 Dec 2002)

At the end of the day, the main reason we do peacekeeping, peacemaking or combat ops overseas is to keep conflicts as far away from our shores as possible. I believe the USA has been very successful at this, although in a more aggressive way than us. Fighting a war for oil ? why not : pugil, if you own a car, how would you like to pay $2.50/li for gas ? Most people in canada would be outraged and eventually agree with military action (remember the Oka crisis ? ) We must protect our freedom and way of life, and if it means fighting a war, so be it. I‘m ready...


----------



## Pugil (30 Dec 2002)

Countries that you dont like doesnt mean that they threaten your freedom, Im tired of that selfish attitude. Im not against all military action, I think that military actions should always be an option during negociation, but we should use it wisely. 

#At the end of the day, the main reason we do peacekeeping, peacemaking or combat ops overseas is to keep conflicts as far away from our shores as possible. I believe the USA has been very successful at this, although in a more aggressive way than us##

It is only a pretext to invade other countries, remember how US started to get involved in Vietnam? Simply because a small boat from North Vietnamese navy was firing at an US carrier, but many decades later media revealed that it was false and it was only to give president Johnson to commit more troops in Vietnam. More recently the media reported that Iraqis troops raped and tortured kuwaitis civilians during their occupation of Kuwait, just not long ago it was also revealed that US lied on that to get International support. When they say that Iraq used weapon of mass destruction against their own people, was the US the only ountry that have used atomic bomb on civilian? not once but twice. What about agent orange during Vietnam war? (chemical weapon highly deadly to humans)..ooopss im getting a bit off topic.


----------



## portcullisguy (31 Dec 2002)

I‘m with Pugil on several points, here.

The greatest advocate for peace is a person just back from a war.

My grandfather didn‘t talk much about his experience in WWII, not because he didn‘t win a VC and was ashamed or something.  But simply because, like many, he didn‘t want to be there, but went anyway.  Too many people lost their lives too early in life.  The cause may be just, but that doesn‘t mean we should collectively hurry back into a war at the drop of a hat.

My uncle, a combat veteran of the Falklands, certainly doesn‘t talk about his experiences there much, either.  I had to practically beat him up to get him to tell me how he received a Mention-in-Despatches.  He prefers to talk about his peacetime experiences as a pilot on exchange with the U.S. Navy, and the Bundeswehr, among others, flying F-14‘s, Buccaneers, Harriers, etc., throughout his career.

That said, and back on topic, the best thing we can do with Iraq is probably finish what should have been finished in 1991.  I find it irresponsible that Saddam Hussein was allowed to remain after the war.  So did Gen. Schwartzkopf, thus he retired.  The irony, and what antiwar people jumped on at the time, and now, is that Saddam was elevated to his lofty post as a reaction to the Iranians, who deposed the Shah and instituted a despotic, violent regime.  Well, you lie with dogs, you get up with fleas.  Appeasement never works, as the British found out in 1939.

As to my earlier post, to be fair, my former 2Lt friend (who is now remustering into the CIC after over 10 years out of the CF) wasn‘t talking about Iraq, N. Korea, etc., he was talking about a book of fiction (can‘t remember the title) in which a hypothetical invasion of Canada was perpetrated by the United States.  The book proposed the theory that Canada could never be invaded by the U.S. simply because their losses would make it wholly unpopular at home, and Congress would end the war.  I felt I should clarify, because this particular person is most definitely not anywhere CLOSE to the left wing, and is an educated man, having a degree in history.  But I must digress.

I, too, will go where ever my country needs me, and do whatever I have been trained to do.  If it means Iraq or North Korea, then I only pray that I will do my duty to the best of my capacity so as not to disgrace my ancestors and embarass my progeny.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Dec 2002)

Pugil,
Just like the rest of the media, just cause you read it there doesn‘t mean it‘s true. The door swings both ways. You have to be careful of sources when you "quote" who or who didn‘t do what.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Dec 2002)

We can justify some brutal things in the name of good.
Theres a saying, something like
 ‘beware those whom hide behind the shield of rightiousness‘
I find it amazing how quickly people can overlook that the US caused the vietnam war and when it was over how poorly they acted. (using lsd and agent orange on their own troops, not doing as much as they could for POWs). And with iraq how they tried to get the kurdish people to rebel against saddam and then left them to their own devices, more or less.
Im sure theres a bunch of different points of view on that but thats the conclusions i‘ve drawn from what i‘ve seen on the media,have read and the vietnam/gulf war vets i spoke with.

The saddest thing of all is that even if we wanted to go to war i don‘t think we could.


----------



## Wilson601 (31 Dec 2002)

Well, Ghost. that sounds like it could be a mixed blessing.   :skull:


----------



## Jungle (31 Dec 2002)

The US did use 2 atomic bombs in 1945... but how many lives were saved by ending the war that much sooner ? Nobody knows... how many people were killed by the Japanese in the Pacific, including the bombing of Darwin, Australia ? Now keeping in mind that nothing is perfect, and that people (and nations) make mistakes, I think the world is a better place today because of US interventions since 1945. Could things be better ? of course !!! but they could be much worse. Who could stop them if they were expansionists ? What if they had decided to do like the USSR did with East European satellites states ? Finally, Vietnam was a mistake, and mistakes were made after the Gulf war in 1991. But then again, when you don‘t do anything, you can‘t make mistakes...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Dec 2002)

Jungle,
Absolutely, couldn‘t agree with you more! How easy it is to sit back, benefit from their system and pontificate on the righteousness, or lack of it, of the US. Yes, they can be percieved as pompous and arrogant bullies at times. More likely a byproduct of a patriotic upbringing. Something sorely lacking in Canada and other western nations. I agree, we could have been in a world of hurt a few times in the last century, and possibly now, had it not been for the actions of the US. While not condonning their behaviour sometimes, perhaps it is the lesser of two evils. I‘m sure Canada‘s history has more than a few skeletons buried in some old bases in the wilds of the forgotten woods. It‘s always easier to pick on the winner or percieved bully, without looking inwards. Besides, who says you have to fight anyone or anything fairly. The objective is to win, with the least amount of casualties and expenditure to yourself. Axworthy‘s Soft Diplomacy or the US‘s don‘t f**k with me attitude? Sorry, the latter works better for me.


----------



## Wilson601 (1 Jan 2003)

Here here, recceguy.  :skull:


----------



## silentseaforthsoldier (1 Jan 2003)

Sounds like to me that the yanks want to make yet another "Rental" on CF Coyotes...  :tank:


----------



## onecat (1 Jan 2003)

I have a question for Jungle.

What does Oka have do with oil and 2.50 li gas?


----------



## Pugil (1 Jan 2003)

I believe that we should a strong military that would strike fear in our enemys heart when needed. But we have to use it carefully  because it is a double edge sword and can damage our reputation worldwide.  It is easy to say lets go in that country and bomb it back to the stone age. Going back to the topic, If US attacks Iraq it would the fist time US invades a country without a provocation, as we know through history invaders ALWAYS lose the war..just a matter of time. I dont understand why Iraq and N.Korea arent allowed to have weapons of mass destruction and if they do they are considered a threats to freedom while Israe has over 100 nuclear warhead and country that bash all UN resolution against it more than all the Axis of evil combined and stil not considered a rogue state. Thats the reason why I want Canada to stay away from an invasion of Iraq.

**It is a good thing that war is ugly, otherwise people would like it too much** General Lee


----------



## Spr.Earl (1 Jan 2003)

The latest poll asked Canadian‘s would you support an increase in the defense budget?

The over all answer was yes,BUT if it took money away from health and child support NO!!

 So I guess we are not getting any defense increase.

 If we go,you can bet we will be out on the road with our thumb out again looking for lift.
Also for Log. support if and when we get there as in Afgahnistan.

 I‘m proud to were my Uniform but ashamed when it come‘s to were we can‘t support our selve‘s to deploy or sustain a battle group when in theater!

I think the Yank‘s will take our specialist‘s and that‘s all.

 As whe need‘s a bum who you have to supply all the time and look after.

 A very sad state of affair‘s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Jungle (1 Jan 2003)

> What does Oka have do with oil and 2.50 li gas?


Nothing... The ref to Oka is about Canadians getting fed up with a situation and agreeing with military action, and in response to Pugil talking about fighting a war for oil.
Pugil, when was the last time you‘ve been to a war ? I have witnessed war in a few places on this planet, and I am not a war monger. But Saddam Hussein has ridiculed UN resolutions for 10 years now, he had 4 years to prepare for the weapons inspector‘s return, and that‘s enough. If he does not fully cooperate, then military action is called for. Same thing with North Korea: we need to take action (not necesarily military at first) before they can detonate a nuclear bomb over South Korea or Japan. Yes Israel owns nuclear bombs, but they are for self-defense only as they are surrounded and outnumbered by potential aggressors. We must prevent expansionist states, like Irak and N-Korea, to develop or acquire WMD.
Finally, to comment on the use of atomic bombs by the US in WW2, don‘t forget the US was attacked by Japan without a declaration of war in 1941. And if you‘re so shocked by that, how come you are not disgusted about the way our POW‘s were treated by the Japanese after Hong Kong ? They spent over 4 years in inhuman conditions, many dying of disease or bad treatment.


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Jan 2003)

Thank you, jungle and recce...the voices of reason. I think it is chic around the world (and on this board, at times) to be anti-American, and that clouds the objectivity in discussing the topic. The US is not perfect, and as some of you have adeptly pointed out, some of us seem to have selective memory. To base one‘s opinion on Canada as a whole, on foreign policy decisions/mistakes made generations ago would be ludicrous. Rational people know that no nation is perfect, no set of foreign policies is perfect; to base one‘s opinion on a country‘s leader using left wing news snippets is foolish, and that one can be pro-Canadian without being anti-American. When the shoe fits, the US should wear it, but put away the brush with the broad strokes. sheesh


----------



## portcullisguy (1 Jan 2003)

Pugil ... here‘s another look at history: Invaders don‘t ALWAYS lose.

1066 - William the Conqueror successfully invades England.
1688- William of Orange lands his protestant armada in England, leading to the removal the Catholic James II from the throne, and to the conquest of Ulster by England.
13th C - The Mongols, originally displaced Turks, made a nomadic conquest of most of China - they remain in what was China‘s extreme north to this day.
And, of course, the Spanish conquest of the Americas.  We don‘t hear much from Technochitlan these days.


----------



## Pugil (1 Jan 2003)

__________________________________________
 Yes Israel owns nuclear bombs, but they are for self-defense only as they are surrounded and outnumbered by potential aggressors. We must prevent expansionist states, like Irak and N-Korea, to develop or acquire WMD.
__________________________________________

Israel has been bashing UN resolutions for more than 50 YEARS, and everytime thye are condemn by all countries except US. Do you think thats double standard? Remember US supported Saddam Hussein before, in the recent past US supported alot of despotic dictator and now they change it saying that they are a threat to the world. what threat? They dont even have an economy and their army is ill equipped and trained. N. Korea cant even feed their own people and an almost nil economy.  We should tell those countries that and attack to any of their neighbors would mean the end of their regime and the world would be reunited to fight them instead of provocating and seeking for confrontation policy like Bush and his warmongers been doing when came to office. His policy toward those countries are seen as provocation by many countries, and when one of those country stands up Bush turns to the world and say that they are a threat to the freedom and that we must strike them fist. I agree with military action  only if theres a backing of UN. Im not a anti-american, but I disagree alot with american policies but that still doesntmake me an anti-american. 

To Portscullysguy, I can name you wars that has been lost by invaders in this century and I dont need to go back thousands of year in our History


----------



## Suffield (1 Jan 2003)

Pugil,
This is starting to vaguley sound like the anti Israeli/US rhetoric coming from the pro Palestinian Student Union at Concordia. Not a student there are you?


----------



## Pugil (1 Jan 2003)

The answer is no


----------



## Anti Matter (1 Jan 2003)

FYI

Agent Orange was intended as a herbicide and NOT as a chemical weapon. The often fatal illnesses that were the result of exposure to Agent Orange were cause by TCDD, a Dioxin. TCDD is man-made and, unlike some other Dioxins, is not found in nature. It is an unwanted byproduct of the chemical manufacturing process and it was only discovered later that the Agent Orange used in Vietnam was heavily contaminated with TCDD  :skull:  . There was also a 2nd version of Agent Orange called Agent Orange II (or Super Orange) as well as several other defoliants which went by color code names such as Agent Green, Agent White, Agent Blue, Agent Pink etc...


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jan 2003)

I think Pugil had a good point about iseral and the UN.

"Yes Israel owns nuclear bombs, but they are for self-defense only as they are surrounded and outnumbered by potential aggressors. We must prevent expansionist states, like Irak and N-Korea, to develop or acquire WMD."

Iraq may want WMD for self-defense also. 
How can we decide whats right when we‘ve had our hand in as many conflicts and dirty wars as we have.


----------



## Spanky (1 Jan 2003)

I‘ve been reading this bantering for awhile.  Some of you I agree with, others I do not, but Saddam having WMD for defensive purposes?????  Surely you jest!


----------



## Korus (1 Jan 2003)

I guess his chemical weapons are not enough for self defense against his own population rising against him?

Though is he crazy enough to nuke his own land on that point?


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jan 2003)

He is sitting beside a country whom he was at war with for 8 or whatever years AND who hasn‘t had their army obliterated. Of course i know he wouldnt have those weapons just for defense (That was just an example) but it could be a major reason for it. i mean his army surrenders to unmanned airplanes, he knows he needs something more loyal then that.

Heres a question

If Iran decided to invade iraq i wonder what we would do. Would we sit back and watch, would we send in the UN? Isn‘t iran chalk full of terrorists? Would we hjoin iraq and attack iran "in the war against terrorisim"?


----------



## BestOfTheBest (1 Jan 2003)

I really hate to say this and i just dont get people sometimes but his people actully love him as a leader! Like for real, you see them parading outside on the streets cherring for him. Even kids which they have brian washed.
Here is my little problem that i have with Iraq. thats only my problem(my opinion)
Most countries have Nukes(for self defence hopefully) but when you have Nukes, Bio, and Ch weapons you start to think that this is not self defence. Look at the States when i say that.
I have one question only Why are only the U.N inspecting Iraq for weapons! why dont they check everyone who has weapons!!!!!
I dont get that most counties have Bio,Ch, and Bio and U.n does not get to chech them
I am not saying that that Iraq is a good country.
I just think everyone should get inspected. 
just to make it fair
Thankgoodness we got no nukes or any of the other sh1t1


----------



## herbie (1 Jan 2003)

"I dont understand why Iraq and N.Korea arent allowed to have weapons of mass destruction"  ???
Those countries signed treaties (after they invaded they‘re neighbors) stating that they would not pursue the WMD capability.  They are in blatant violation.  
As to the US‘s foriegn policy, remember that untill very recently the USSR posed a very real danger to the entire world.  NATO was formed to defend the free world against communist aggretion.  NATO is the only multinational organization who‘s members are all democratic.  (some junior members have work to do...).  For stratigic purposes NATO had to make some difficult choices.  Iraq was one of them.  Now that the cold war is over, those uneasy allies have begun to abuse the power and aid they recieved.  One good example is the Taliban.  Iraq is another.  The UN is incapable of dealing with the situation.  NATO, spearheaded by the US should deal with that rogue nation.  As to wether or not iraq threatens world peace.  They pay the families of suicide bombers.  They give safe haven to al qaida, they are murdering Kurds.  They fired scuds at Isreal ( a non partisipant ).  The evidence is there.  
I don‘t blindly believe in all the US does.  Softwood lumber for instance.  But they are right about having to deal with these nations.  Clinton tried diplomacy and aid.  Billions were sent to N Korea.  Yet the people starve as they make illigel nukes.
Softpower has failed with these two, now its time for an ***  whooping!!!


----------



## Korus (1 Jan 2003)

The reason the UN inspects Iraq is that after Gulf War I, The security council made a resolution that Iraq should be disarmed of all weapons of mass destruction. They have been inspecting to see if Iraw has complied to that resolution. 

Iraq was the aggressor in Gulf War I, and the UN (US) pushed them out of Kuwait. Then the aggressor was punished.


----------



## Jungle (2 Jan 2003)

BestoftheBest : other countries are also being inspected by the same agency that was in N-Korea (Int‘l Atomic Energy Agency). You will find info about their mission statement here:  web page 
Look at the last para.
Most countries that have nukes had their program before the Non-Proliferation Treaty (including Israel, India, Pakistan and many more) and under the treaty they are permitted to keep what they had.


----------



## Pugil (2 Jan 2003)

I somewhat agree that US is the lesser evil of both sides but that doesnt make all their actions legitimate. If Iraq fully complies with the arm inspectors, will the US still want to attack Iraq? If the US knows that Iraq has WMD why dont they give proofs now? While they know for sure that N.Korea has some nuclear weapons, but still say that N.Korea is NOT a threat. Do you see the logic in all this? For all the warmongers, I say dont worry war is coming very soon, war is inevitable now. Military build-up has been under way since last summer, Bush is not going to let its military sit in the Gulf war just in case of war, imagine how much money he will waste to ferry all the equipment and personnel if war is avoided. He is going to find a way to get war started whatever the UN will say. I think the best option is to let their neighbor deal with that issue and US should be the mediator in that instead of beating the drum of war. 

Here a link written by a BBC news correspondent, very interesting
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2595435.stm


----------



## Spr.Earl (5 Jan 2003)

All of you are speaking of WMD.

Have you looked into the effect‘s of D.U. round‘s?

 They have much worse effect‘s on a population than gas or nerve agent‘s as they persist for year‘s.

 For your own info search the net.
What you will find will scare you!!!!!!!!!!

 I‘ll give you some time and come back.


----------



## riddleofsteel (5 Jan 2003)

> I really hate to say this and i just dont get people sometimes but his people actully love him as a leader! Like for real, you see them parading outside on the streets cherring for him. Even kids which they have brian washed.
> Here is my little problem that i have with Iraq. thats only my problem(my opinion)


A lot of Iraq‘s populace only put on displays of "love" for Saddam because they are aware that they are being watched by his secret police. Dissidents have a tendency of dissapearing in Iraq. When they had their "election" not too long ago (where Saddam was, big surprise, the only candidate on the ballots) many Iraqis "voted" for him out of fear that their names would be taken from electorate lists and used against them and their families. Saddam‘s regime, much like Hitler‘s, not only targeted the individual but entire family lineages. Something else to keep in mind is that the media in Iraq is state controlled.


The only people in Iraq that love Saddam are the ignorant, some Arab and Iraqi nationalists, and those whose loyalties have been purchased.


----------



## portcullisguy (5 Jan 2003)

I thought the point of the DEPLETED uranium ammunition was that the uranium is depleted from being used (for example, as a nuclear fuel rod) and is no longer dangerous radioactive.

The purpose for its use is as an armour-piercing projectile.  Uranium is a dense and heavy metal, and I believe it is preferable to steel for many armour-piercing applications, usually by ground and air attack aircraft.

Of course, I have done NO research at all on this besides anecdotal tidbits I‘ve picked up.


----------



## Pugil (7 Jan 2003)

Lets not forget that in the past the US embraced dictators like Saddam and Suharto, the US is just fooling themselves by saying they are after Saddam but we all know that they are after oil. If they are so honnest about their mission, why didnt they help the kurdish people during their uprising against Saddam after the Gulf war?


----------



## Fusaki (7 Jan 2003)

the US is willing to support anyone who‘s views support the US agenda. all that stuff about WMD and oppression and Saddam‘s being an evil SOB is just sugarcoating for the feint of heart. the reality of the situation is that we‘re going to war for our own purposes, not some rightious crusade to liberate the ignorant Iraqis. western propaghanda provides the moral highground needed to wage war in support of economic goals.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Jan 2003)

I know many of you don‘t like the magazine (probably, some do)- but Esprit de Corps has run a number of articles about the supposed ill effects of DU rounds. I‘ve also heard some "experts" on radio shows etc., alluding to a connection between Gulf War Syndrome and DU rounds. Of course, it‘s all kind of sketchy. Portcullis - am not 100% sure, but I think "depleted" uranium has been used up in a reactor, or whatever it‘s original purpose was, but it still, obviously, has enough radioactivity to cause concern...


----------



## portcullisguy (8 Jan 2003)

For me, it doesn‘t matter why we‘re going to war.

It‘s an inevitability that we should‘ve known the day the last shot was fired in the 1991 Gulf War.

Sure, the U.S. and to some degree, NATO, is responsible for putting Saddam in the castle, figuratively speaking, in Baghdad.  We all know the why‘s and what for‘s.  A different age -- a different threat.  Soviet influencein the region through Iran is no longer the issue.

Now we have an uncontrollable dictator with access to WMDs.  He‘s gone "off the screen" as they say, and has committed hostile, unprovoked acts in the past.

Make no bones about it, the Americans have made enemies playing both sides of the Israel/Arab issue, and they certainly have made enemies by trying to manipulate the world‘s furthest reaches through their "foreign policy" arm, the CIA.  But if the Americans have a problem, then NATO and the rest of the west has a problem.

Saddam should never have lived out 1991.  Had we had the intestinal courage to finish the job then, we wouldn‘t be worrying about them right now.

I‘m not going to pretend the pending war isn‘t about oil, or the like.  Fact is, I‘m not qualified enough to know or care what it‘s about.

If the Queen says to go and fight, so be it.


----------



## onecat (8 Jan 2003)

"I‘m not going to pretend the pending war isn‘t about oil, or the like. Fact is, I‘m not qualified enough to know or care what it‘s about."

The fact is you are qualified, and can state what ever is on your mind.  As a member of the CF, if the gov‘t says go....well you go.  But that doesn‘t mean you have to like it or support the reasons.  The sad fact is that he should be taken out in 1991 like you said; but Bush Sr. just didn‘t have the guts or the support. ( most likely both) The thing that bothers me is that if the weapons are there, why isn‘t the Bush admin, getting out that information.  Listing the places and types, so the UN can go and find this stuff. More openness would make it easier to believe that is about WMD, and not oil.


----------



## portcullisguy (11 Jan 2003)

The weapons probably aren‘t there.  They‘ve probably been spirited away to Syria.  If they are there, they may be in an area not previously identified as a WMD dump.  The UN identified over 700 sites they needed to visit, and only 300 have been visited as of today‘s newspaper report.

The WMD has to be there somewhere.

According to CNN (I know... I know.. bear with me though), Saddam‘s brother and a cousin fled into exile to Jordan in 1995, during the last round of UN inspections.  They gave information to the world, and the UN inspectors found documents detailing WMD projects in their homes.  After a period of six months, when the ordeal blew over, the two men were invited back with the promise of a "pardon" for their crime.

Of course, they were shot, only three days after returning.

It begs the question: If it was there in 1995 (and in 1991, and prior to then), why wouldn‘t it be there now?


----------



## Dacier (11 Jan 2003)

The only way a western democratic country can survive a high casualty rate is when the people are fighting for their country‘s exsistance.

Politicaly the USA and its allies might cave under pressure from the world after seeing days of innocent cilivians killed.  Hard to explain thousands of innocent lives to others when your not in a fight for your country‘s survival.

The average person will accept war if he is safe at home and doesn‘t have to view the carnage.


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (11 Jan 2003)

Well, lets remember why the "War On Terror" all started, those planes hitting the World Trade Centre kinda hit home don‘t you think? I‘m sure it will be easy to convince the world that this might happen again unless they eliminate the threats before they strike again.


----------



## Spr.Earl (12 Jan 2003)

This was Emailed to me by a friend as he know‘s I‘m an Engineer and we do Battle Field Clearence and E.O.D. work.(Unexploded Ordenance)

 Below are link‘s into what D.U. round‘s are made from and what active isotope‘s are still active in them,how they react on contact and what‘s left after,what are the health effect‘s for those clearing U.X.O.‘s etc.

 There is a lot of info and will take some time but I suggest every one read the info and make your selve‘s aware what to expect over sea‘s where these round‘s have been used and be carefull!!!!


"All, especially veterans of Desert Storm, veterans or current in Kosovo
and
> current in Afghanistan.......
>
> Following my obsession with deminer safety, I have been exchanging
messages
> with a very clued up medical guy on DU and the hazard. I will post his
> report if there is sufficient interest (it reads well, is packed with
> authoritative sources (often DoS/DoD) and not packed with anti-military
> "evil-guys" rhetoric).
>
> But to start the ball rolling....... here is his summary of the hazard and
> some clips from his recent exchanges.... Please let me know what‘s what
from
> your point of view.
>
> The main hazards of DU are safety issues:
>
> 7 Risks of fire.  DU can ignite at relatively low temperatures (500 C).
>
> 7 Heavy metal toxicity: Uranium is a heavy metal and its oxides are
reported
> to be of similar toxicity to Arsenic oxide, particularly affecting the
renal
> system.  This may not appear significant from small inhaled quantities but
> could be serious in acute exposure to explosion dust and debris with a
high
> load of DU oxides entering nose and throat and swallowed.
> 7 Risks of radioactive contamination by inhaling DU oxide dust and
ingesting
> it from dust in the mouth, in water or in food.  DU burns into a very fine
> black dust or ‘aerosol‘ with a combination of soluble and insoluble
Uranium
> oxides.  Larger particles may coat the immediate target area with what
looks
> like soot.  But 60%+ are less than 1.5 microns, widely dispersed by wind
and
> small enough to remain suspended in the atmosphere in smog-like
conditions.
> Airborne oxides may be captured in rain or snow and re-suspended in hot
> weather.  DU contamination was recorded up to 25 miles away from one
> manufacturing site in the USA.
>
> DU‘s radiation hazards are its most controversial feature.  Pure U238
emits
> alpha-radiation - high energy but very short range (a few millimetres)
plus
> traces of Beta and Gamma from the Thorium and other "daughter" isotopes
> released as it decays.
>
> For military purposes this low-level radiation appears to be low risk for
> external exposures e.g. when handling DU in its metal form (e.g. as shells
> or armour) provided gloves are worn.  But some spent munitions have been
> reported with higher levels of radiation possibly due to inconsistent
> processing and higher contamination with U235 and other isotopes.  DU
> quality control and contamination (isotopic mix) is likely to vary
> significantly by manufacturing date, process and country of origin.
>
> The greatest hazard is when insoluble Uranium oxides are inhaled into the
> lungs.  Particles may migrate into the lymph and blood system and Alpha
> radiation will permanently irradiate adjacent tissue.  See research on
> health effects of Low Level Radiation at:
>  http://www.llrc.org/health/healthpage.htm 
>
> Adverse health effects will depend on exposure level - a combination of
the
> quantity of DU oxide dust inhaled or ingested, frequency and duration of
> exposure.  Most DU research to date has assumed low dose exposure for fit
> troops from small and medium calibre weapons (from 30 to 120 mm) weighing
> from 275 grams up to 4.5 kilograms per penetrator.  However if DU is used
in
> much larger quantities - in warheads weighing 300 kg to 2 tons - then
humans
> within several hundred metres may suffer severe contamination and acute
> health effects.  Civilians living in DU targeted areas are vulnerable to
> ongoing contamination.  These wider effects need new analysis.
>
>    .......................................
>
> You set me wondering what  health effects might arise for deminers working
> in DU contaminated zones. The obvious large one was the Gulf.  Does anyone
> keep tabs on longer term health problems for deminers?
>
> If DU was used in guided bombs in 1999 Kosovo, I think it would have been
> fairly localised to the Albanian border and high value targets in Serbia.
> Any deminers been working in those areas?  If so how is their health? But
> Kosovo/Serbia/Albania had nothing like the scale of bombing in the last 3
> months in Afghanistan. I am concerned for everyone operating in
Afghanistan,
> including urban areas which received fairly intensive bombing in the first
3
> weeks.
>
> I think CDI suggested 6000 tons of guided munitions were used.  Perhaps a
> third might have had a DU content. About 50% of weight may be DU.  I think
I
> stay with 1000 tons as a feasible high-end estimate if DU is the mystery
> metal I am trying to track down.
>
>   This could be important. There are far more deminers in Afghanistan ....
> Plus deminers are hazard aware.  And their leaders are part of the
> acceptable expatriate landscape.  Deminers are potentially one of the
higher
> at risk groups i.e. likely to be involved in recent bombing locations -
> especially urban (I have just been reading an MSF report on mines in
> Afghanistan).
>
>   I am looking for pragmatic solutions to identifying potential DU hazards
> the fastest way possible.  UNEP may take months to get a team there.
>
> Of those messages you forwarded, the most serious quote is one from Tommy:
>
>  > Always tried to stay away from copper because it reacts
>  > with so many pyrochemicals and forms sensitive salts over
>  > time. If longivity of a device is not a player in a
>  > particular scenario then copper would probably work OK --
>  > but I still think I would be careful of what I put it into
>  > intimate contact with.
>
>   This is not just slightly serious.  Read some of the stuff about
Mavericks
> having a 10 year shelf life.  Not with copper shaped charges by the sound
of
> this.  Never mind the extra hassles of DU.  It comes in a wide variety of
> alloys with very different qualities according to function (including
> corrosion resistance). But its melts a lot easier  than tungsten.
>
> The problem with DU pollution as that no one is going to know that it‘s
> there - at levels sufficient to cause potentially serious problems in a
> year‘s time.  My guess is that the leukaemia cases in KFOR were involved
in
> post-combat target assessment or inspection - like hundreds of people in
> Afghanistan.  And since DU warheads "don‘t exist" they may not have been
> warned.
>
> My deepest concern is about apparently systematic strategy from deep (or
> high) within several systems to spread the belief that  "DU is safe"
belief
> over the last 10 years.  .... But in fairness most people have to believe
> what they are told and so accept the DU is safe story.  On the same basis,
> so was blue asbestos in the 60‘s.
>
> I think the jury is still out on some cluster bombs, more so since Tommy‘s
> comment above.  Unfortunately they may use the cover of the same weapon
code
> with/without suspected DU as they have done with the GBU‘s. They still
have
> 10-15 year old designations but many now with advanced penetrator options.
> The GBU-28 must have evolved a long way from the legendary 1991
prototype -
> artillery barrels stuffed with HE.  They have a whole test centre
dedicated
> to developing HDBTDC weapons - China Lake?  (see FAS).  Perhaps the same
> goes for cluster bomb liners. I am still very suspicious about the S-M
plate
> liners.
>
> But at this stage I am as concerned for deminers as the local civilians in
> Afghanistan.  And kind of hopeful that they may be a key to checking the
DU
> connection, if only for self-preservation.  Perhaps you could post a field
> detection of DU hints and tips page?
>
> (PS you are welcome to quote bits of this message to your network if
> relevant.  Likewise any relevant extracts from the report.  Useful if I
can
> get it on line somehow to save you posting the lot.)
>
>
> UNMAS TECHNICAL NOTE:
> To recap on where we are now, the following is extracted from the UNMAS
> Technical Note 09.30 02 2001 Depleted Uranium (version 2). It may be a lot
> easier to follow if you visit their site and see it laid out properly.
(See
>  http://www.gichd.ch/).  So guys, what‘s what with the DU hazard in
demining?
> Anyone using PCMs? Anyone care? What do you think?
>
>
> Introduction
> There has been recent major media speculation and interest in the
potential
> hazards presented by DU contamination in post-conflict environments. This
> has resulted in the publication of speculative material about the possible
> risks to health from DU.  Much of this recently published material is not
> supported by the existing scientific knowledge of the real health hazards
> posed by DU.
>
> This Technical Note has been written, as an advisory document, to remind
> mine action managers and field staff of all the potential hazards of DU
and
> to provide guidance on the establishment of a safe operating environments
> and procedures.
> The DU clearance tasks should only be undertaken by appropriately
qualified
> EOD personnel or other qualified staff; they are not a task for basic
> deminers or other field staff.
>
>
> Clearance of depleted uranium (DU) hazards
> 1. Scope
> This Technical Note establishes principles and provides guidance on the
> clearance of depleted uranium (DU) hazards encountered during demining
> operations in a permissive post conflict environment.
> 2. References
> A list of normative references is given in Annex A.  Normative references
> are important documents to which reference is made in this Technical Note
> and which form part of the provisions of this Technical Note.
> 3. Terms and definitions
> A list of terms and definitions used in this Technical Note is given in
> Annex B.  In the Technical Notes  series, the words ‘should‘ and ‘may‘ are
> used to indicate the intended degree of compliance.  This use is
consistent
> with the language used in International Mine Action Standards (INMAS) and
> guides.
> a) ‘should‘ is used to indicate the preferred requirements, methods or
> specifications.
> b) ‘may‘ is used to indicate a possible method or course of action.
>
> 4. Background
> Recent conflict has seen the limited use of DU munitions by both air and
> ground forces to destroy ground targets, mainly AFVs.   The legacy of the
> use of these munitions remains and could be a clearance task for demining
> organisations in, currently, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kuwait and Kosovo and
> following other future conflicts.
> DU ammunition is known to be currently in service with the armed forces of
> Israel, Russia, UK and USA, and is reportedly under development by India.
> It is thought that DU ammunition is restricted to the following generic
> types of ammunition;
> a) Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) tank and AFV
> ammunition in calibres including 25mm, 105mm and 120mm;
> b) 20mm cannon rounds for the U.S. Navy‘s Close-In Weapons System (CIWS),
> commonly referred to as "Phalanx"; and
> c) Cannon rounds, both 25mm and 30mm, for U.S. ground attack aircraft,
> including the A-10 "Warthog," and the AV-8B "Harrier."
>
> 5. Reasons for DU hazard clearance
> There are numerous reasons why the clearance of DU hazards may be
desirable
> in a post conflict situation.  These include:
> a) to reduce risk to human health;
> b) to allow destruction of unserviceable or unstable ammunition;
> c) to safeguard the environment;
> d) to permit environmental clearance of the area;
> e) to allow the EOD clearance of armoured fighting vehicles (AFV).
> 6. The DU threat
>
> 6.1. Uranium
> Natural uranium is a material of low radioactivity, which can be handled,
> worked and stored with simple safety precautions. When enriched uranium is
> manufactured from natural uranium, a residue of depleted uranium is left,
> which is markedly less radioactive than the initial uranium; it is no more
> chemically toxic than lead.
> Natural uranium exists as three isotopes of different half-life and
> different radioactivity in the following proportions:
> ISOTOPE ABUNDANCE(ATOM %) DISCHARGES / MINUTE HALF-LIFE(YEARS) REMARKS
> 238 U 99.200% 105 109 The parent of the natural uranium series.
> 235 U 0.720% 106 108 the parent of the natural actinium series.
> 234 U 0.006% 1010 105 A daughter product of 238U decay.
>
> The 235 U and 234 U are more active and are therefore more commercially
> useful isotopes.  In order to provide the commercial uranium industry with
a
> standard for the activity of uranium, a level of 0.711 weight% (wt%) of
235
> U is considered to be natural uranium.   235 U was chosen for this
standard
> because it is the most relevant isotope for use as fuel in nuclear
reactors.
> To exceed this 0.711wt% requires processing, to produce what is known as
> "enriched uranium".  The remaining uranium substrate from which the 235 U
> has been removed to enrich other uranium is known as "depleted uranium"
> (DU).  This DU usually has less than 0.2wt% 235 U content.
>
> To display sufficient radioactivity to be commercially useful, uranium
> requires enrichment to more than 8.0wt%.  At this level, the radiation
> hazard exceeds the metal‘s toxicity.  DU, with a 235 U component of less
> than 0.2wt% emits too little radiation to cause serious harm, and
therefore
> the hazard is metal toxicity.
>
> DU is a by-product of the uranium enrichment process and is also widely
used
> as ballast or counterbalances in ships and aircraft.  It is also used as
> radiation shielding and in non-nuclear civil applications requiring
> high-density material.
>
> DU is comprised almost entirely of 238 U isotopes; it is approximately 60%
> as radioactive as natural uranium and behaves, chemically and physically
in
> the same way as natural uranium.
>
> The uranium industry has been operating for over 50 years and the
experience
> gained from handling uranium in its raw, enriched and depleted state over
> this period has provided the basis for the handling and use of DU. As a
> result of this experience, care and safety standards have been developed
to
> reduce the potential hazards of handling and using DU to a minimum.
> 1.2.6.2. Advice and International Responsibilities
> Advice on radiation safety and on the disposal of radioactive waste can be
> obtained from either:
> International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA)
> P.O. Box 100
> Wagramer Strasse 5
> A-1400 Vienna, Austria
>
> Tel:  (+43) (1) 2600-0
> Fax:  (+43) (1) 2600-7
> E-Mail:  Official.Mail@iaea.org
>  http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/P_release/2001/du_background.shtml 
>
> World Health Organisation (WHO)
> Avenue Appia 20
> 1211 Geneva 27
> Switzerland
>
> Tel: (+41) (22) 791 2599
> Fax: (+41) (22) 791 3111
> E-Mail: inf@who.int
>  http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact257.html 
>
> The IAEA has statutory responsibilities for establishing standards for the
> protection of health against exposure to ionising radiation and for
> providing for the application of these standards at the request of any
> State. In fulfilment of these functions, the IAEA has established a
> comprehensive corpus of radiation safety standards in close collaboration
> and consultation with other relevant organisations in the United Nations
> system.
> The International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionising
> Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources (Basic Safety
Standards),
> which were established jointly with the International Labour Organisation
> (ILO) and other international organisations including the WHO, are the
> authoritative radiation protection standards for assessing the potential
> radiological impact of the uses of DU.
> The exposures to which the requirements of the Basic Safety Standards
apply
> are any occupational exposure, medical exposure or public exposure.
However,
> they only cover risks of radiation and do not cover the toxic risks that
may
> be associated with uranium intake. In the past, the IAEA, based on its
> statutory mandate and competence has prepared comprehensive scientific
> radiological impact assessments.
> 1.3.6.3. DU ammunition
> DU is used in kinetic energy attack munitions because of its metallurgical
> properties; it is metallurgically similar to steel, thereby allowing
similar
> production and processing techniques to be used.  The very high density
> allows for much higher kinetic energy  levels to be delivered to the
target
> than an equivalent round made of, for example, steel.  A secondary effect
is
> that the DU oxidises readily, thereby proving a pyrophoric effect within
the
> target.
> The combination of design, high mass and high velocity allows the DU round
> to penetrate the target using the principle of hydrodynamic penetration.
> The pressures involved are so high that the armour of the target flows
away
> from the DU penetrator
> 1.4.6.4. Identification of DU fragments
> DU fragments have the following physical characteristics:
> a) non-magnetic;
> b) extremely heavy. In relation to size DU is 60% more dense than lead;
> c) jet-black lumps or dust, possibly with a greenish tinge. After three to
> four weeks they will turn green;
> d) honeycombed. The fragment will have an aerated texture;
> e) they retain heat. DU fragments will retain heat to the point where they
> will cause serious burns for three to four hours after firing. A red hot
> core may be coated with black dust and therefore appear cool; and
> f) sparking. When cold, if struck with a metallic object such as a pick or
> shovel, they will spark in a similar fashion to a lighter.
> 6.5. Depleted Uranium (DU)
> 6.5.1. Health hazards
> The health hazards depend on:
> a) the route of exposure, (inhalation, ingestion or contact in wounds);
> b) the magnitude of exposure; and
> c) the particle size and solubility of DU.
> Effects due to external exposure would be limited to radiological effects,
> whilst the effects due to internal exposure include both radiological and
> chemical toxicity effects.
> Information on the health and environmental effects of DU is limited.
> However, since uranium and DU are essentially the same, except for the
> composition of their radioactive components, scientific studies on natural
> uranium are applicable to DU.
> Notwithstanding these hazards, the real risks have been assessed as
minimal,
> provided appropriate safety precautions are taken and followed.
> 1.1.2.6.5.2. Radiation dose rate
> DU emits alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Alpha radiation will not
penetrate
> clothing or even skin.  The radiation dose rate at the surface of
unshielded
> DU is approximately 2.3 milli sieverts per hour (mSv/hr). A large
proportion
> (98%) of this dose rate is attributable to beta radiation.
> The density of DU means that only radiation emitting from the surface is a
> factor, as the DU itself shields the internal emissions.
> Despite this decay rate, it is emphasized that DU is not a nuclear,
> radiological or chemical weapon; the DU is used because of its high atomic
> mass/density and metallurgical properties.
> 1.1.3.6.5.3. Hazard reduction
> The bare DU material (either as a complete round or as pieces of a fired
> penetrator) would have to be handled in excess of 200 hours before the UK
> Safe Exposure Limit (SEL) of 500mSv (for the hands) is exceeded. This SEL
is
> extremely conservative. The external radiation hazard to the hands can be
> significantly reduced by the wearing of gloves that attenuate the beta
dose
> further, giving safe times of up to 5000 hours per year.
> The risk can therefore be considered to be low and it becomes negligible
> once gloves are worn.
> 1.1.4.6.5.4. DU dust
> A slightly increased hazard to those undertaking EOD clearance arises from
> the presence of DU dust produced as a result of fire or explosion.
> Ingestion, inhalation or the passage through an open wound or abrasion of
DU
> particles could, but is very unlikely to, affect the kidneys and lungs.
> Insoluble DU particles could accumulate in the lung parenchyma; this
> presents a low toxic risk because of the insolubility, but could lead to
> localised low-level radiation damage.
> Soluble DU particles at a low concentration level can be rapidly excreted
by
> the kidneys without damage.  At very high concentrations, there is a
> possibility of renal necrosis followed by regeneration.  However, to reach
> these high levels, an individual would have to be exposed to DU dust
> particles, without any form of personal protection, for a very long time.
> Normal EOD operations require the use of PPE, and are completed long
before
> there is any real risk of surpassing even the low concentration levels.
> The UK Defence Radiological Protection Service (DRPS) consider the
> precautions recommended in this Technical Note are more than adequate to
> provide protection. Good personal hygiene, such as the covering of cuts
and
> grazes before work commences and the washing of hands after work will
> further reduce the already small hazard.
> The respiratory protection requirement is related more to the chemical
> toxicity of DU than to its radioactivity. The danger from heavy metal
> poisoning may exceed the radiation hazard.
> 1.1.5.6.5.5. DU contamination from stored or unbroken fired rounds
> In all DU ammunition, the DU component of the projectile or round is
> contained within a steel or aluminium jacket.  Should it be obvious that
the
> projectile or round is intact, being either unfired or having impacted on
a
> soft surface, and the jacket appears to be unbroken, the rounds have
almost
> nil hazard.
> 1.1.6.6.5.6. DU fragments and contamination from fired rounds
> As the sub-projectile, (penetrator), of DU ammunition hydro-dynamically
> penetrates through a target it breaks up into fragments, some of which can
> be quite large. At the same time, very high temperatures are generated
> within the DU and DU oxide is dispersed into the atmosphere, albeit in
very
> small quantities.
> DU fragments will be in all shapes and sizes. Some may still be oxidizing
> and, as such, their cores will remain red hot up to some hours after
firing.
> 7. Equipment
> 7.1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
> The following PPE should ideally be used by the EOD technician or
qualified
> staff member until the presence of DU can be positively discounted:
> a) inner cotton gloves;
> b) outer heavy PVC gloves of industrial quality;
> c) respirator  or face mask; and
> d) protective trousers and overboots.  (Optional to protect clothing).
> The aim of the PPE should be to provide complete overall protection from
> inhaled or skin-contact dust, and cuts from sharp fragments.  Managers
> unable to obtain military equipment should use the best materials, and
> ingenuity, to achieve this requirement.
> 1.2.7.2. Thermoluminescent Dosimeter (TLD)
> The EOD technician should wear a TLD during DU clearance operations.
> Personal dosimetry and health checks should be co-ordinated with a local
> appropriately qualified medical facility.  TLDs can be obtained from a
> variety of sources.  The following have been identified from an Internet
> search; there will be many others:
> a) Landeur.  (http://www.landaueriii.com/);
> b) Proxtronics Incorporated.  (http://www.radiationmanagement.net/); or
> c) Rados Technology.   (http://www.rados.fi/).
> Information on how thermoluminescent dosimetry works can be found at
>  http://www.ab.ust.hk/sepo/tips/rp/rp002.htm. 
> 1.3.7.3. Portable Contamination Meter (PCM)
> A Portable Contamination Meter (PCM) - Type Mini Monitor fitted with a
B-6-H
> GM Tube, is a small, sensitive but rugged instrument used for the purpose
of
> detecting DU contamination.
> An Internet search will provide a wide range of suppliers for these
> instruments.
> 1.4.7.4. Alternative methods
> Where dosimeters or PCMs are not available, and there is historical
evidence
> of the use of DU ammunition by one party to the conflict, then all AFVs
are
> to be considered suspect and full precautions taken accordingly.
> 8. DU clearance methodology
> 8.1. Detection of DU contamination
> 8.1.1. Use of PCM
> It may not always be possible to identify DU contaminated areas visually.
> Normal radiological instruments are not sensitive enough to be of any use;
> therefore it is recommended that a Portable Contamination Meter (PCM)
should
> be used.
> 1.1.2.8.1.2. Personal Dosimetry and Health Checks
> At least one member of each EOD or specialist team is to be nominated as a
> Control Member and issued with a Thermoluminescent Dosimeter (TLD), which
is
> to be worn whenever EOD duties are being carried out in areas where DU
> ammunition has been fired. In addition to wearing a TLD, which is to be
> exchanged each month, collection of a urine sample from the same Control
> Member of each team is to be arranged, again on a monthly basis. This
should
> be coordinated with a local appropriately equipped medical facility.
> The demining organisation should ensure that personnel medical records are
> annotated that they have worked in a potential DU environment to allow for
> regular monitoring in the future.
> 1.2.8.2. Personal protection
> WARNING 1: DU fragments. Do not let DU residue or fragments come into
> contact with exposed unprotected skin. DU fragments are not to be picked
up
> by hand; a scoop or other such tool is to be used.
> DU contamination is relatively harmless unless ingested or absorbed into
the
> bloodstream through open cuts. Fragments of the DU penetrator are
extremely
> sharp and liable to cause cuts if handled carelessly.
> 1.1.1.8.2.1. Simple precautions
> The following simple precautions will reduce the risk of DU contamination
> and serious risks to health:
> a) sleeves are to be rolled down and two pairs of gloves, inner cotton or
> nylon and outer heavy PVC are to be worn. Care is to be taken to avoid
sharp
> objects that may rip the gloves and expose the skin;
> b) allow a minimum of four hours to elapse after firing before attempting
to
> carry out range clearance. Fragments of DU penetrator are red hot
internally
> for up to four hours after firing;
> c) a respirator is to be worn at all times. This will protect against the
> ingestion of any DU oxide that is released due to the movement of
fragments.
> In the absence of a respirator, a damp face veil tied around the nose and
> mouth, or a medical or industrial face mask,  will provide adequate
> protection;
> d) do not use the boot to turn over or move fragments. Always use a CV
Tool,
> stick, scoop or similar item as a remote tool; and
> e) in order to prevent contamination of personal clothing and footwear,
> coveralls and overboots are to be worn if considered necessary.
> 8.2.2. Casualties
> The appropriate medical authorities are to be informed of any casualties
> that occur whilst in a DU contaminated area.
> 1.3.8.3. Collection, disposal and decontamination
> 8.3.1. Collection
> 8.3.1.1. Box Preparation
> The container used must be a robust metal box of suitable size and without
> holes. The box must be strong enough to carry the heavy weight produced by
> even a small quantity of DU and it must be capable of being secured so as
to
> prevent any leakage of the contents. Wooden or cardboard boxes are not to
be
> used as they will absorb contamination.
> A 20 mm lining of a suitable material such as sand or earth is to be
> inserted into the box. This lining is used as a packing medium to hold the
> DU fragments, absorb any DU oxides and prevent fire. The 20 mm lining
should
> be built up around the sides and on top of each layer of fragments as the
> box is filled. A final layer of sand or earth is to be added to the top
> before the box is closed.
> 1.1.1.2.8.3.1.2. DU Fragments
> When collecting DU fragments, a little earth or sand should be lifted with
> the fragment. This process assists in masking any oxides that may surround
> the DU fragments.
> 1.1.1.3.8.3.1.3. Box Marking
> Once filled with fragments and topped with sand or earth the box is to be
> closed and sealed to prevent leakage. The box is to then be marked CAUTION
> RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL - DU FRAGMENTS and the appropriate Trefoil sign
> applied.
> 1.1.1.4.8.3.1.4. Manual Transportation
> Although DU fragments only represent a low toxicity Alpha source hazard,
> filled boxes should not be carried close to the body. They should be held
> away from the body as far as is reasonably possible. Two or three boxes
may
> be carried between two persons using a robust 6 ft pole through the
handles.
> 1.1.2.8.3.2. Disposal
> Filled boxes should be moved to a collection point, (fenced off and
suitably
> marked and signed), and stacked ready for removal by a specialist
hazardous
> and radiological waste disposal company.
> It should be noted that because DU is so dense it acts as radioactive
> shielding, as a result the internal boxes in a stack are shielded by the
> outside boxes. In addition the dose rate at the surface is reduced by
> distance based on the Inverse Square Law. A relatively small distance will
> reduce the level of absorbed radiation appreciably and therefore fencing
> need only be 1 m from the stack.
> 1.1.3.8.3.3. Decontamination
> 8.3.3.1. Surface decontamination
> Decontamination of the ground surface by the removal of spent but unbroken
> penetrators or rounds can be achieved by physical removal of the items.
The
> same precautions as for DU fragments (Clause 8.3.21.2) should be used in
the
> event of jacket rupture, and the fragments should be stored whilst
awaiting
> specialist removal in accordance with Clause 8.3.2.
> 1.1.1.2.8.3.3.2. Target decontamination
> Decontamination of targets can be achieved by vigorously throwing several
> shovelfuls of sand or earth at the target in the area of penetration. This
> removes any traces of DU oxide on the surface and any residual DU
fragments
> in the target can then be collected. Using the PCM, check the area
> immediately below the target for contamination and collect any
contaminated
> sand or earth. Any fragments or contaminated sand or earth must be boxed
in
> accordance with the procedure laid down in Clause 8.3.1.
> 1.1.1.3.8.3.3.3. Jammed penetrators
> Occasionally a partial penetration of a target resulting in a jammed
> penetrator may occur. The surface is to be decontaminated in accordance
with
> the procedure laid down in Clause 8.3.3.1. The penetrator is then to be
left
> for between 7 to 14 days. During the weathering process the penetrator
will
> shrink and can then be removed with a sharp knock.
> 1.1.1.4.8.3.3.4. Cross contamination
> Having taken all precautions to prevent injury and contamination in the
area
> of operations it should be remembered that clothing and footwear may have
> become contaminated and could remain so for a considerable period of time.
> Any item suspected of being contaminated should be cleaned immediately and
> checked using a PCM.
> Normal personal hygiene of washing the face and hands or taking a shower
> will overcome any further possibility of cross contamination.
> 9. Safety brief
> Demining organisations should ensure that all of their managerial,
demining,
> administrative and support staff are briefed as to the hazards of DU if
they
> have to move in a potential DU environment. (Their EOD or specially
> qualified personnel should already be trained in the hazards of DU).
> Although such personnel will not be actively involved in the clearance of
DU
> hazards, they may inadvertently place themselves in a potentially
hazardous
> situation by examining targets hit by DU munitions.
> The following safety brief   should be made available to such personnel:
> DU is a heavy metal, which is used primarily in anti-armour ammunition in
> the main armament of battle tanks, and in the cannon of some ground attack
> aircraft.  It is only slightly radioactive and it has a chemical toxicity
> similar to lead.
> There is no appreciable hazard when the DU round is intact, even after
> firing, but there is a minor hazard when the DU round strikes a hard
target.
> This can result in DU dust and fragments around the target to a radius of
> 50m.  There is only a risk if particles are eaten, breathed in or enter
the
> body through an open wound.  Even then, there is only a very slightly
> increased risk of cancer, or liver failure, over the next 50 years.
> You should be aware that it will not be possible, without special
> instruments, to detect whether a damaged target has been struck by DU. The
> following precautions should be taken.
> a) Do not enter or climb onto a damaged hard target, or loiter within 50
> metres, unless you are working in co-operation with an EOD technician.
> b) If your work requires you to work within 50 metres, wear a facemask and
> gloves, and roll your sleeves down.  Cover any cuts and abrasions with
> waterproof dressings.  Spend as little time as practicable on the task.
> c) Do not eat, drink or smoke near the damaged target.  After completing
> your task, wash and shower as soon as practicable.  Remove your outer
> clothing and, if feasible, replace it.  Otherwise, have it laundered.  Do
> not eat, drink or smoke until you have done so.
> d) If you suspect you have been exposed to DU, inform your medical support
> team.
> 10. Responsibilities
> 10.1. National mine action authority
> The National Mine Action Authority is responsible for warning all mine
> action agencies of any armoured conflicts that have taken place, and any
> history of the use of DU rounds.  The Authority should be aware of these
> Notes, and make copies available, through the National Mine Action Centre,
> to all mine action agencies, including those involved in Mine Awareness.
> 1.2.10.2. Demining organisations
> The manager of any mine action team should also be aware of these notes,
and
> if the use of DU ammunition is suspected or proved, should include the
> recommendations of these notes in SOPs.  The manager is also responsible
for
> ensuring the presence of a trained EOD staff member, or for sending a
staff
> member for specific training in DU hazards.  Where a National Mine Action
> Authority of Mine Action Centre have not been established, managers are
> responsible for establishing amongst themselves a code of practice to
ensure
> the safety of mine action staff and locals.
> 1.3.10.3. Demining personnel
> All mine action staff working in areas of potential DU contamination,
should
> make every effort to keep themselves free from DU dust hazard by
> conscientious use of protective equipment, and strict observation to SOPs
> and the dictates of common sense.
>
>
> Annex A
> (Normative)
> References
>
> The following documents when referred to in the text of this Technical
Note,
> form part of the provisions of this guide.
> a) IMAS 04.10.  Glossary of demining terms.
> The latest version/edition of these references should be used.  UNMAS hold
> copies of all references used in this Technical Note.  A register of the
> latest version/edition of the IMAS standards and references is maintained
by
> UNMAS, and can be read on the UNMAS web site: (See www.mineaction.org).
> National mine action authorities, employers and other interested bodies
and
> organisations should obtain copies before commencing mine action
programmes.
> The latest version/edition of the Technical Notes can be read on the GICHD
> web site:  (See  http://www.gichd.ch/). 

 After reading this I thought to my self who‘s using weapon‘s of M.W.D. ?

 It‘s a live topic in the U.K. and the U.S. right now to ban them due to the toxic residue‘s they leave which linger for year‘s!!!!!!


----------



## Guzman (12 Jan 2003)

Well i hope everyone can look past the fact that im still waiting for my phone call,the fact that ive never put on the uniform,or the fact that i have no idea what its like to shoot or be shot at.

From reading the many post on this thread,the hundreds of polls across the internet,by watching dozens of news reports,reading many articles daily and listening to everyone talk about the iraq issue.Ive come to the conclusion that although everyones oppinion is honest,and hopefuly well thought out.Wether it be that the US wants oil,that they or we have a good reason to invade and topple saddam or whatever eles it is.The people,enlisted or not can only know a fraction of what the intelligence community knows and has known for years if not a decade in this case.

I can agree with everyone on this board in saying that war is not always the sulution.On the other hand,what is? The UN has put up with far too much from iraqs leader and i applaud the US for insisting that he be removed...oh! But then again,we cant loose hundreds if not thousands (God forbid,and may he watch over any man or woman who will pay the price,live or die,as a hero) of our finest...what are we to do?

The point that im getting at is that although i enjoy talking and reading about this topic,be it what it is,war.Is that we as Canadians or any of our allies,again,enlisted or not,do not know the whole story.

I respect the opinions of everyone who has posted and do not fully agree or disagree with any one person,but my point of view stands.

Incase your wondering,I for one say Saddam has been at head far too long.Mr. Bush senior,in all his wisdom should have used all the support he gained from the first persain war to rid the world of Saddam.then again,Hitler should never have been born and Michael should have never became a white woman.**** happens.

So to end this ramble...we know what they want us to know.This is far more complex then we imagine.Im sure this has far more to do with then oil and nukes.Lets leave it up to those who we elected (i was too young for cretein so dont look at me)for these jobs,and hope they dont send good men and woman to a slaughter house.

p.s. Excellent thread,keep it going.


----------



## Fusaki (12 Jan 2003)

do you guys think that we would still invade Iraq if it was proven that Saddam had WMD?

i‘ve come under the impression that the governments who support this war are hoping Iraq does NOT have a nuclear capability. i agree with Dacier: 

"The only way a western democratic country can survive a high casualty rate is when the people are fighting for their country‘s exsistance."

if Saddam really does have nukes, i can see this whole thing ending up like another cold war. after all, if we were willing to go to war against a nuclear country, wouldnt North Korea be the first to go?


----------



## Guzman (12 Jan 2003)

I think the US and the UN have enough reason with out the WMD.I think that finding the weapons is merly an attempt to rally the people.
Americans dieing,quite possibly by the hundreds,isnt popular around re-election time.

I say take him out,wether or not he has the weapons.Hes poison to the world.

The korean war never really ended,I dont understand how they got so far in the weapons program without the US knowing or steping in.


----------



## Korus (13 Jan 2003)

But it‘s not as simple as "Saddam is bad"

One of the reasons he‘s still in is that if he was simply taken out, someone worse would most likely take over. He was evil, but is somewhat controllable, so they decided not to commit the resources to ousting him earlier on.

Now, when they get rid of them, the UN/US will need to set up a new, friendly (puppet) government, and ensure that the leader is not going to take the country in the same dirrection as Saddam did. Look at recent history, and you‘ll see that this is no easy task. 

Effective, non-Iraqi troops will be needed to protect and enforce the forming of the new government, and a Chapter 7 peacekeeping mission will not do this, since their effectiveness is at the whim of the local leaders as was demonstrated in Cambodia, East Timor, and other such places. And what are the chances of having a Chapter 8 mission after the war is over to set up the government. (How long did it take the _Genocide_ in Rwanda to go from Chapter 7 peacekeeping to Chapter 8 peacemaking?)

This would seem to be one of the reasons why the US and Canada are willing to act without UN approval...

Just my 2 cents, I felt like ranting..     
   :bullet:            :bullet: 


(Editing proof of my poor grammer, and failure to fully proof-read     )


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Jan 2003)

Seems like hussain has a lot more support in his country then before. 

It could be from the fact that they‘ve had embargos or restrictions or whatever placed on them the last 10 years by the us
also last time we invaded we said "rise up against saddam! rebel against him and we will help you"
Well they rose up and we refused to help them and they paid the price for it, got slaughtered.

So now its a case of the boy cried wolf. 

When we go in and say "rise up against saddam and we will help you!" their going to grab the nearest AK47 and give us their version of the finger.
I don‘t blame them either i‘d do the same.


----------



## SpinDoc (13 Jan 2003)

One theory that I‘ve heard (and I think it makes sense) is that they kept Saddam around to act as a counterweight to Iran, since Iran is equally (if not more) unfriendly to the U.S.  With Iraq (relatively) strong, it could act as a buffer for Saudi Arabia and whatnot.

One ficticious scenario (which I‘m not saying by any account is the likely scenario... it IS fiction) was written by Tom Clancy in Executive Orders... where Iran absorbed Iraq and became a big menace to the entire region.


----------



## Pugil (13 Jan 2003)

in the 80s the US indeed supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein by providing weapons and money for the war he waged against Iran. At that time the islamic revolution that helped to oust the King that the US supported and installed a new goverment that was unfriendly to the US. After that Saddam invaded Iran supported by the US and the war lasted for several years.


----------



## Jungle (13 Jan 2003)

> Effective, non-Iraqi troops will be needed to protect and enforce the forming of the new government, and a Chapter 7 peacekeeping mission will not do this, since their effectiveness is at the whim of the local leaders as was demonstrated in Cambodia, East Timor, and other such places. And what are the chances of having a Chapter 8 mission after the war is over to set up the government. (How long did it take the Genocide in Rwanda to go from Chapter 7 peacekeeping to Chapter 8 peacemaking?)


First of all, there are 2 chapters of the UN charter dealing with peace support ops: chapters 6 and 7. Chapt 6 is about traditional peacekeeping, with restrective ROEs. Chapter 7 deals with peace enforcement, with war-like ROEs. A number of countries actually treat chapt 7 missions as "war-like conditions". This was the case with East-Timor, as it was under chapt 7. Korus, I don‘t know where you got the info from, but the INTERFET mission was a complete success and was followed by a UN administration that has since been replaced by a elected, civilian government. So these things can be done with success.


----------



## Dacier (13 Jan 2003)

Can someone post a link to the chapters for Peace Keeping? I looked around the UN Peace Keeping site, but couldn‘t find the information.


----------



## Gunner (13 Jan 2003)

Go to google.ca and type in "UN Charter".


----------



## Korus (14 Jan 2003)

Re: Jungle;

I mixed the chapters up, and I guess I spoke too soon WRT East Timor, I was reffering to the earlier on stages before Indonesia would allow much other than international Police in, and did little to quelch the intimidation tactics against voters.. I don‘t have as many details on how it ended, so thanks for correcting me.

I guess it will depend a lot on how real the Anti-US/UN, Pro-saddam image portrayed by the Iraqi Gov‘t is, and how much control they have over those who would want to sway a new goverment to their own favour...


----------



## Dacier (14 Jan 2003)

Found it, thanks Gunner.


----------



## Gunner (14 Jan 2003)

Feed a man, and he is fed for a day.  Teach a man to fish and he could be fed for a lifetime.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jan 2003)

Set someone on fire and keep them warm the rest of their life.

(Sorry had to heh)


----------



## Pugil (16 Jan 2003)

Let‘s get reasonable, folks. Saddam is in no position to attack anyone, and in 11 years he only managed to shoot down only 1 unmanned aircraft. With an army that surrenders to umanned aircraft he is no position to export WMD, and therefore NOT an immediate threat to the US. The threat he poses to the US is probably less than our own home-grown terrorists, and certainly much less than a nuclear North Korea. So wheres the problem?


----------



## Jungle (16 Jan 2003)

Pugil, obviously you need to find transportation to New York to explain to the UN security council the truth about the Iraqi situation. Then you should carry on to Washington and tell the Pres of the USA that he is absolutely wrong in his assessment of current international affairs, and set him straight !!! We‘re counting on you... 
In the mean time, we clearly know your opinion on the subject, so please start beating another drum.


----------



## JGreen (20 Jan 2003)

I‘m new here thought I throw my two cents in.

More and more it seems, that Iraq is digging itself into a hole, very recently they began digging very fast. In the last couple of weeks the inspectors discovered shells two different times that could (most likely) be used for the delivery of chemical weapons, these shells were not disclosed to the inspectors or the U.N. in the report given by the Iraqi goverment. Just yesterday I believe, the inspectors to possesion of a 3,000 page document with information that had not been declared in the Iraq weapons declaration, Iraq seems to be tripping on its own shoe laces.


----------



## Jungle (20 Jan 2003)

JGreen, welcome aboard EH !!! And good luck in your future career...


----------



## Pugil (20 Jan 2003)

Oh well, I think I have made my case, just read my replies. I stronly hope that history will prove me right.


----------

