posted 06-06-2001 01:54 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
I wonder how it feels to be a traitor in the blue uniform of the United States Airforce.
To spray your friends, neighbors, and CHILDREN.
To knowingly, and openly do this in
violation of Federal and State law.
And then to have the balls to say, nope, not us.
You will reap what you sow.

---

How heartwarming. I'm glad to see yet another post from you indirectly directed at me. Please reference Duncan Kunz's post over in the Chemtrails section. I'm getting sick of replying to your constant unsolicited attacks on me. But, I will continue to respond, as I have the right to self defense.

I proudly wear the blue uniform, and proudly wear the silver wings upon my chest. Each time you and those like you attempt to kick me and my fellow pilots around, I have to smile because I know that there is no real censorship, political imprisonment, and population control going on here in our country. None, that is, compared to elsewhere in the world. The sentences I quote above would get you imprisoned, tortured, and possibly killed in many countries other than ours. In our country, it makes a fighter pilot mad, and he has to spend his evening typing a post on his computer to respond to it.

In the past year in the rest of the world:

In Sierra Leone, thousands of men, women, and children had their hands cut off to prevent them from voting. All media access to the rebel-held territory has been cut off, and many reports are filtering out about enslavement of young boys, and rape and murder of women.

In the West Bank and Jerusalem, Palestinians were rounded up and brutally beaten until their limbs were broken for no reason at all, and fortunately was caught on video for the world to see. Also, hundreds of Palestinains remain behind bars, charged with no crimes.

In China, births are strictly controlled. Babies born illegally are killed, and mothers are imprisoned and sterilized. Political prisoners are tortured and killed on a regular basis.

In Afghanistan, non-muslims are being singled out to wear special insignias on their clothing to show what religion they are. Does this remind you of something that happened in Germany in the 1930's? All things not in compliance with the Taliban's strict interpretation of the Koran are forbidden, and non-muslim religious icons are destroyed.

In Iran, non-state radio and media has been all but wiped out in the past year, and government sponsored killing squads have murdered several vocal opposition leaders.

In Iraq, Saddam Hussein forces his military members to shoot at coalition planes by threatening the soldiers' families with death. In the past, soldiers would desert their posts and avoid shooting at coalition aircraft because retaliation would come their way soon afterward. In the past six months, threats to coalition aircraft have increased significantly. Saddam has a well-documented past of killing entire villages of his own citizens with nerve gas and executing over half of the elected officials in the country when he overthrew the government.

In Colombia, drug lords are in control of virtually the entire country and have murdered most of the executive officials who are not already coerced into being puppets for the cartels. Civilians are being killed in the streets as "examples" of what is done to those who do not follow them.

Let us not forget the brutal reign of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, of which the effects of are still felt today. Virtually all educated people in Cambodia were killed, and the rest of the population enslaved and forced to work under unbearable circumstances. Any disobedience was not tolerated, and torture was the only option other than death as a consequence. Today, you can visit the mass gravesites and see thousands upon thousands of skulls stacked on top of one another. Doctors and teachers are non-existent, and they have to be imported from other countries. The literacy rate is horrible, and an entire countries' written history has been forever lost.

I haven't even mentioned Rwanda, Congo, South Africa, Chile, Yugoslavia, India, Indonesia, and many, many other countries.

I'm making these points because I hear a lot of quibbling about how this is not a great country to live in. Well, I've heard the same "love it or leave it" line, but I believe more and more that this applies to a lot of the whiners that I hear about online. Go to China, where they'll save a bowl of rice for you and a cot on the floor in the 8 foot by 8 foot, 12-man cell. Sure, I believe that we have a lot of faults. We have more people per capita in prison than any other country. We're not at the top of the list in education, longevity, and infant survival. We had slaves, and drove an entire race of people across their homeland and placed them on "reservations."

But, you get to come on the internet and whine about your rights being trampled on and fire off inciteful remarks at the protectors of your rights. You get to buy and own a firearm, you get to choose a politician to represent you, you get to earn as much or as little money as your talent can get you. You can read books, pick a school to send your kids to, and leave the country if you so choose. You can choose not to be a member of the evil military, and march right up to the Pentagon and demand that your agenda be listened to.

I was a hippie in college. I used to have the "no way will I fight Uncle Sam's war" opinion and I even had thoughts of moving ot Canada if we had to go to war. I was about as liberal as they get. The more I realized how much I was able to criticize my government and how much I learned about other countries, the more I learned how precious our rights and our country is. And, eventually, that's what brought me full-circle to the military and my willingness to defend our country.

I'm not against any of your statements about Chemtrails or any other subject for that matter. What I am against is your posts designed only to make someone angry and are not looking to get to the bottom of the issue at hand.

So, I'll let you keep on firing off your posts aimed solely at making me upset. Your jabs started out small, but they have worked their way up to this. Granted, they do piss me off, but I also have to smile because I know that your ability to make these statements and fly MY flag upside-down is in no danger of going away, and I will do my best to keep it that way. I will reap what I have sown, as will you.

Do you honestly believe that I know about something that knowingly harms my friends, my family, and my relatives? Pardon my French, but you can stick it up your ass if you think that. Not only is that completely untrue, but I take great offense at it. But, offending me is what you're trying to do, isn't it, David?

Enjoy your day and enjoy your freedom.

Maverick

posted 06-06-2001 03:41 AM            

This is not about you.

You are merely a a cog in a military monstrosity that has turned against it's civilian overlords.

That's right, my taxes are whats keeping a roof over your head, flyboy.

Not the other way around.

Get over yourself... your not Tom Cruise, "Mav".

My father was in the military. He fought in two wars. He sat me down, once, and explained to me that one day I might have to fight for my country and that as long as I acted with bravery and honour I would be strong and unafraid.

He then proceeded to tell me that this was impossible to do within the ranks of one particular branch of the military, a group whom he referred to as "push-button killers".
Men that never understood the true nature and horror of war because they were so far removed from the destruction they created.

He made me promise to never join the Air Force. At the time, I was too young to understand the true meaning behind words like honour and courage. I was a boy.

Now that I am a man, I see the wisdom of his words. I would serve this country proudly if a legitmate threat to it's sovereignty or it's borders or it's citizens were involved.

But I would rather hang from the gallows pole than join the United States Air Force.
You are no warrior, "Mav". You are just an egotistical adolescent who can't fight his own battles, even on an internet message board.

Anyway, that was the advice my father gave me. On his deathbed, cancer eating him alive.

A veteran of two wars...back when most of the killing was done face to face.

posted 06-06-2001 08:42 AM               

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I, or my name isn't Tom Cruise.

WTFO? Where do you get off saying any of your crap? It's also MY taxes that put a roof over my head, jerk. I'm sure your next line was that since you do pay my salary is that I should start taking orders from you as well.

The world doesn't revolve around me, as it doesn't you, either. Here in cyberland, you get to badmouth anyone you want with no consequence. I'm sure that your garbage would be a lot less harsh if you were to meet someone in person. "Push Button Killer?" Look in the miller, pal. You're pushing buttons right now. I get up to Seattle every once in a while. Let's do lunch.

I respect your father's opinion, and it is a very wrong one. I respect the fact that your father seved our country, and you have every right to be proud of him. My father served, too. So did several members of my family. Respectfully, though, I'm going to take what they say about the current military with a grain of salt. They are no more an expert on modern air combat than you are. And you are no expert.

Are you saying that the men who have fought in the Air Force are any less of a warrior than an Army or a Marine soldier? I'd ask you to tell that to an instructor of mine from pilot training, who strafed a AAA gunner who was shooting at him and had miscellaneous body parts and blood smack his F-4 canopy as he pulled out of the dive. This was but one of his experiences. I've heard more harrowing stories about air combat than I ever want to have heard. Push button, my ass. If you've ever been in a dogfight, you'll disagree with what you or your father has said. Every one of us knows the consequences of our actions, and every bomb dropped in combat is helping to reduce losses by our comrades on the ground. I'll tell you right now that my pink body will be put on the line should the men on the ground need me to do so. It's called ECONOMY OF FORCE. I put my one life on the line so hundreds of my comrades on the ground don't have to. Grow up, we're in the 21st century now.

Tell the pilots who spent upwards of seven years in the Hanoi Hilton that they were not warriors. These guys are heroes, just like the ground troops.

Egotistical adolescent? Sounds familiar, sort of like it was referencing yourself. Say hi to NSA for me, by the way. You two are like peas in a pod. I seem to be fighting my own battles myself quite well, thank you. Hmmm....let's see. One against many? The fact that you and several others here have resorted to personal attacks speaks volumes as to who's winning this "battle." But, that's just it, isn't it? This shouldn't be a battle, yet you guys want to keep making it this way. Shame on you.

I'll close with this:

Amber-

If I were to ever come across any information that the public at large was being subjected to a spraying campaign, or any campaign aimed at harming them, then YOU BET THAT I WILL DO WHATEVER I CAN TO STOP IT. If my family, friends, and relatives were put in harm's way by our government, then I would blow every whistle and come forward with every bit of proof that I have. It is the first DUTY of any soldier to protect those that he holds closest to his heart.

Maverick

posted 06-06-2001 09:29 AM            

As far as whining goes. You do a fine job youself, any time someone mentions the airforce you come unglued.
Now you say you HAVE to sit up nights and answer posts. MY FAULT, I think not. YOUR JOB.

My comments would get me tortured, imprisoned, or executed in another country.

posted 06-06-2001 07:55 PM            

I guess if you define "professional" by participating in a campaign to smear forum
participants and post their personal information on this board, then you are correct.

I guess you don't have a problem with that, or Col. Dan, aka Assasin's, recent activity either.

Frankly, I find this deeply disturbing.

Nor do I consider "Mav's" implied threat regarding coming up to Seattle to "meet" me professional, either.

Final thought, tg69.

Do you know, roughly speaking, what the number of civilian Iraqi casualties was in the Gulf War? You are fond of posting Amnesty International links detailing other countries atrocities.

Post this one, if you dare.

Now, please tell me what our casualty rate was. Feel free to include our military casualties as well.

This was not a war. It was a massacre.

And no political rhetoric, please.

Just the numbers.

Go ahead. Post it.

And then then tell me about 'honor'.

posted 06-07-2001 04:48 PM               

Thanks.

David-

You said "I wonder how it feels to be a traitor in the blue uniform of the United States Airforce." I'm seeing a blanket accusation against the Air Force, myself included. If that was not your intent of this message, then your clarification is noted.

Sure, I'm going to defend the Air Force at every turn. If I did not believe in my mission and what we do, then what good am I? I've repeatedly stated that I will not tolerate any abusinve language directed at my fellow pilots and myself. Like you, if I were to find out some of them were involved in a spraying campaign against the american people, my family included, I'd be the first one to put the noose around their necks. The fact is that I have not found these alleged "spray pilots" that so many of you speak of, and I've been around the block more than a few times in the Air Force.

You are entitled to your opinions, as am I. I'm not out to quiet anybody, and I thought that I've made that clear. What I am out to do, is add my aviation and military experience to this forum because some of you have absolutely none of either. To know your enemy should be a number one priority for you, and I only see the opposite when things like accusations against sprayplanes for knowingly breaking every FAA reg in the book, yet none of the rules are ever cited. Educate yourself, and I won't have to post all of the time and be a stumbling block for you.

Chem11-

Please show me where I posted personal information on this site about anybody. It wasn't my choice to have Col. Phillips come on here and do that, and I certainly had no part in anybody's information being published here.

I'm not threatneing you, either. I'd like to be able to trust you enough to show you around my plane and the base when I get out to McChord, as I do every once in a while. The fact is that I won't trust you because you are so outspokenly anti-military that I'd treat a personal visit with you like a personal visit with Usama Bin Laden. I'll leave it at that.

I'll be happy to post the number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War to you. I just haven't been able to find an accurate estimate yet. I have found that somewhere between 85,000 and 100,000 Iraqis (mostly soldiers by far) died in the two-month-long war. In that time period, about 300 coalition soldiers lost their lives.

Yep, it makes me angry. How we could lose so many of our coalition forces makes me mad. We did not do a good enough job, because 300 people lost their lives fighting to take back an overrun country and supress a tyrannical Iraqi regime.

So, what you are saying is that we should have sent over about 50,000 of our troops to be butchered by Saddam's army? Would that then have made it more to your liking? The fact is, that war is not designed to be even. You don't plan an attack to make sure that it's "fair." You attack to defeat, and do it as convincingly as possible. It's not pretty, and it can get downright nasty. That's why war is supposed to be a last resort when all other options have failed. So, I fail to see your point. I'd hate to put you in charge of an army.

I am very proud of our accomplishments in Desert Storm. Now, the fact that we are still over there and many Iraqis are still dying from U.N. sanctions, well that's another story.

I'll close by giving you a link to an essay that I agree with wholeheartedly. I believe that it will answer any more questions that you have about the Gulf War and whether or not it was fought correctly by the Coalition forces. The bottom line is, that no civilians were ever purposely targeted and the civilian to military loss rates in this war were far lower than WWI, WWII, and Vietnam.

That, my friend, is honorable.

Maverick
http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1991/s91/s91fotion.html

posted 06-07-2001 06:53 PM            

One need only to look under your log-in to see the clarity of the message. Pay up. Dare to speak out against the military and we will post your personal information. Pay up. A constant reminder to those in this forum what the consequences of activism can be. Pay up. We will post your name. Pay up. We will post your telephone number. Pay up. We will post your address. Pay up. We will find you and you will be sorry and you will pay up.

I asked you to do two things: Post the civilian casualty rates and refrain from political rhetoric.

Not that I thought you'd rise to the challenge... but I had hoped.

Instead you make up some ridiculously low number and start in about 'supressing' Saddams tyrannical regime.

One that we armed to the teeth.

One that we green-lighted to invade Kuwait.

One foolish enough to believe that they were anything more than a testing ground for the newest military hardware.

I asked you to do this because you don't seem to have a grasp of the realities of modern diplomatic policy, which are based on Kissingers vision of "tri-lateral" diplomacy.

This is not about patriotism, TG. As always, it is about the money. War is quite profitable to the men who orchestrate these conflicts and develop and sell the weapons used in them. Not so for the men and women who are the targets of these weapons, on any or either side.

posted 06-07-2001 07:07 PM            

John Stockwell is a 13-year veteran of the CIA and a former U.S. Marine Corps major. He was hired by the CIA in 1964, spent six years working for the CIA in Africa, and was later transferred to Vietnam. In 1973 he received the CIA's Medal of Merit, the Agency's second-highest award. In 1975, Stockwell was promoted to the CIA's Chief of Station and National Security Council coordinator, managing covert activities during the first years of Angola's bloody civil war. After two years he resigned, determined to reveal the truth about the agency's role in the Third World.

The CIA and the Gulf War

posted 06-07-2001 07:23 PM            

Finally, the demonization of Saddam Hussein has been orchestrated in large part to deflect attention from the enormous destruction of the Iraqi civilian population...

posted 06-07-2001 09:13 PM            

Topgun probably wouldn't believe it, but I have friends and co-workers in the military in an enlisted and reserve capacity, some of whom work at McChord.

These are extremely patriotic people who are willing to accept what they are being told is the truth in regards to this operation. Obviously, I am skeptical in this regard.

But, like you, they are clearly aware that this operation exists. The trick will be to put protective measures in place to safeguard these people from military prosecution and worse.

posted 06-08-2001 02:24 AM               

Once again, putting words in my mouth. Funny, you do that two times in the posts since my last one. I'll get to the other one in a minute, as well as your statement to Delphi about my posts on another board. First, let's discuss the Pay Up issue. Well, the only thing that I mean about Pay Up is for an idiot scumbag loser hypocrite fear-mongerer (insert favorite insulting term here) that is no longer with us to make good on his debts to another person. No other meaning is implied. Yep, I was attempting to smear him, and I will continue to do so. I know the truth about him, and I go confidently forth in my efforts to get him to pay his debts. It's the only way to get at someone who has been on the run from his responsibilities for quite a while now. Sorry it had to happen here. It will happen at other places, too, until it gets through his thick skull that he can't go through life without taking responsibility for his actions. There is only one victim in this whole deal, and it is Col. Phillips. Case closed, as you are so fond of saying. Many of your allies on this board agree with me, and have made me aware of that privately.

Next, let's talk about my posts on other boards that are so inflammatory. I'll post the link here that is to my evil posts. I'll let them spesk for themselves. I don't say anything over there that's any different than over here. Other folks, well that's another story. I can't control what other people type. But DO NOT put words in my mouth, and then offer to not include the link to save some poor soul the time to read them. I don't buy it.

Here's the link. I post under the name MAVERICK. http://www.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?&user=Earthboundmisfit

And, finally, I'm supposed to automatically NOT believe that you know people that work at McChord. Well, I believe you, especially after you contradict yourself about them.

You say:
"These are extremely patriotic people who are willing to accept what they are being told is the truth in regards to this operation."

Then, you say:
"But, like you, they are clearly aware that this operation exists."

Well, which is it? Do they believe in Chemtrails, or do they believe "what they are being told?" Or is what they are being told is that there are chemtrails?

I answered your question above about Gulf War casualties as well as I could given the time I had to type this afternoon. I did a search on "Gulf War Casualties" and found two statistics on Iraqi casualties. One was 85,000 and the other was 100,000. Is this not the number that you were expecting? Your point, anyway, that what happened in Iraq was a dishonorable thing has already been addressed above. You're wasting my time by asking me to do any more of your research for you. Besides, if maybe you would begin to answer a few of the questions that I've posed to you, then maybe you'll get a thesis paper out of me on Iraqi war dead. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Quack, quack.

I've read Col. Stockwell's material before. I've seen him on public access at protests and such. I admire him, but I don't really agree with him. Once again, the question comes up: if it's published or if it's online, is it therefore factual? I hardly think so. Just look at your new pal over at the Seattle site.

I also read your "eight myths" link and it is so full of errors and typical left-wing radical crap that I had a hard time reading it all. I won't spend my evening discrediting a letter that's not even here on this site, so I'll say this: There were some 30 countries involved in the liberation of Kuwait, and even Switzerland (a typically neutral nation) sent money to help with the operation. Virtually every other country sent troops and equipment to the desert. As for the rest of the paper, I'll refer you back to my link above after you've read the "eight myths" link again.

Eyesopen, thanks for your service to our country. There are a lot of very open-minded folks in the military, too, and I took the red pill BEFORE I joined. I agree with you about the true nature of war to an extent. But, is being in the military going to make you more of an expert on Chemtrails? Most of the people who work in the Air Force do not even get near a plane in their normal line of work. I wouldn't expect a Supply Officer to know anything about Bernoulli's Principle or a Civil Engineer to know how to defeat an SA-2 (surface-to-air missile.) I do expect them to know how to do their jobs, and they do it well. But, I don't go to them when I want an expert on anything aviation-related.

Anyway, I hope that you are doing well. I'm sorry to hear that you are ill, and I'm sorry to learn about how bad you and other Gul War vets are being treated in the hospitals. I'm on your side on that issue.

Maverick

posted 06-08-2001 04:03 AM            

Introduction

The Gulf War of 1991 was presented as a war for democracy - a war for the liberation of Kuwait, and to oppose the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Iraq was presented as well armed, ruthless, and a threat to peace and democracy throughout the Middle East, and indeed the entire world.

Far from being a war of liberation, the Gulf War was a contest for Western moral legitimacy that required the criminalisation of Iraq. Whilst setting up Iraq as the menace to peace and democracy the West was establishing it's own moral authority as the only force to ensure stability in the post Cold War world. Amid economic slump, the decline of traditional institutions, and the breakdown of the post-war order there is little more than moral authority for Western governments to turn to.

The scare stories, panics, and propaganda used to smear Iraq in most cases rest on little or no evidence. For instance, it was simply not true that Iraq possessed, or was about to get hold of, nuclear weapons. Inspection teams from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have never found a nuclear bomb, or evidence that one exists. Despite the large sums of money that Iraq spent on nuclear research, it was still many years away from producing even one small atomic weapon, and independent studies of Iraq's nuclear facilities point out that most assumptions of their future nuclear plans are improbably optimistic, based on the progress of America's Manhattan Project during World War 2, rather than the experience of a third world country, that has had to import most of it's technology from the West.(1)

However, facts did not prevent newspapers like the Sunday Times presenting a series of contradictory 'exclusives' claiming to reveal the hidden truth about Iraq's weapons. On the 28 November 1990 they headlined a story "Iraq may have a nuclear capacity in two months"(2). Three weeks later a front page article informed us "Iraq is Two Years away from Nuclear Bomb"(3). A curt dismissal of their previous projection was buried at the bottom of the article.

The tales of Saddam's nuclear arsenal came from American military intelligence reports, written for public consumption. As the Sunday Times itself freely admitted, an opinion poll conducted in America showed that only 31% of those interviewed would support a war to defend US interests in the region such as oil, but a majority thought the war would be justified to prevent Iraq getting the bomb.(4) From then on the nuclear, chemical, and military threat posed by Iraq became the No. 1 story of the Gulf War.

Despite the this lack of evidence there was very little criticism of the West's claims against Iraq, demonstrating the strength of Western chauvinism and the anti third world consensus that rules today. However bizarre and contradictory these stories became, people were prepared tobelieve anything about Iraq.

Even the critics of government policy accept the moral parameters set. In Britain, the Scott Inquiry is investigating government ministers at the highest levels for illicit arms sales to Iraq before the Gulf War. Yet all commentators, however critical, see the selling of arms to Iraq as the central problem, not Britains own arsenal, which it readily used during the Gulf War. Ministers are criticised for lying to Parliament, but not for bombing Iraq back to a pre-industrial age.

The need to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction became a central argument in the demonising of Iraq and justifying the Gulf War. Yet accepting the obsession with proliferation obscures who is really to blame for conflict and destruction in the Middle East. It is the West that has the real arsenal of 'weapons of mass destruction', and the ruthlessness to use them.

Radioactive 'nuclear bullets', made with waste uranium from the nuclear industry, were used during the Gulf War. They have contaminated Iraq's soil and water table with toxic and carcinogenic dust that will last 4,500 million years. The dust released from these uranium tipped shells as they explode causes genetic damage and has been linked to the rise in childhood cancers in Iraq since the Gulf War. The population of Iraq has never been informed of the hazard, nor offered compensation or measures to protect themselves.

In recent months the West has made clear it is prepared to drop the bomb on North Korea. As in the case of Iraq, the obsession with the possibility of North Korea developing a nuclear capability ignores both the massive nuclear arsenal possessed by the USA (the only country to have used the bomb), and Bill Clinton's threat to 'annihilate' North Korea with very real nuclear weapons.(5)

Having criminalised Iraq through the scare stories of proliferation, the West gained the moral authority to destroy it. Whilst Iraq was accused of a nonexistent nuclear arsenal, the West were using weapons such as cluster bombs, napalm, fuel air explosives, and depleted uranium in addition to it's awesome conventional firepower.

Depleted Uranium

Depleted uranium is a low level radioactive heavy metal. It is the waste left from the enrichment process whereby the fissionable uranium-235 isotope is concentrated for nuclear weapons or reactor fuel. The non-fissionable uranium-238 isotope (depleted uranium) is left.

The development of DU weapons by the US military began in the 1970's(6), with Britain starting test firing of DU weapons in 1980(7). The most important quality of DU is it's extreme density. DU is two and a half to three times as heavy as steel. This density allows DU missiles to travel a 40-kilometre range at a velocity of 1500 meters per second - four times speed of conventional large-calibre shells.

A DU projectile provides maximum penetrative power because it can concentrate phenomenal weight on a single point. It's armour piercing capacity is spectacular. US A10 'tankbuster' pilots who fired DU missiles on Iraqi tanks during the Gulf War called it 'plinking' - slang for shooting tin cans. DU is also pyrophoric - small particles of DU burn spontaneously in oxygen. On impact with a tank or armoured vehicle a DU shell fragments and ignites, enhancing it's destructive power - it sets the ammunition and fuel on fire burning tank crews alive.

An additional attraction of DU is it's cheapness. The stockpiles of DU built up by the nuclear industry provide cheap material for munitions production, whilst sparing the nuclear industry the headache and expense of long-term storage. Instead they are able to dump their nuclear waste on a third world country.

The Gulf War of 1991 was the first opportunity that the US and British forces had to test their DU weapons in combat conditions. How much depleted uranium was used may never be known but it has been estimated that the Allies fired between 5,000 - 6,000 DU tank rounds(8) and 940,000 bullets from aircraft such as the A10(9).

However, even more worrying than the immediate destructive effects of DU weapons, is the long-term health risks associated with DU and it's use in munitions.

Pyrophoric explosions create microscopic airborne particles which can spread across kilometre-wide areas. They are sufficiently soluble to contaminate soil, groundwater and surface water. These microscopic, radioactive heavy metal particles (DU and daughter products like beryllium) can enter the body through ingestion and inhalation. When ingested DU accumulates in the bones and kidneys and like lead is permanently deposited. It causes irreversible damage to the kidneys and the growth of tumours. DU crosses the placenta during pregnancy - children are particularly vulnerable to it's toxic effects because their cells are dividing rapidly as they grow.

When inhaled DU can also enter the body through the lungs. Some of these particles will be trapped there permanently and increase the risk of cancer. Others will settle in the bones and the bloodstream with the results mentioned above.

The toxic affects of DU are challenged by the military authorities, but in May 1991 the US Defense Department admitted that the military use of DU results in "...the potential to cause adverse impacts on human health, primarily through the water pathway."(10)

A secret report by Britain's Atomic Energy Authority, revealed by The Independent, estimated that the Allies had left at least 40 tonnes of DU, enough to cause "500,000 potential deaths", and that the sheer volume of DU left in Kuwait and Iraq "indicates a significant problem" (11). Other researchers have estimated that up to 300 tonnes of depleted uranium weapons may have been left on the battlefields.

The military refuse to classify DU as a 'radiological weapon' (12), claiming it is only slightly radioactive. Nevertheless, when Siegwart Gunther, medical director of the Albert Scheitzer Institute arrived in Berlin in July 1992, carrying a spent DU round retrieved from Iraq, he was charged with illegally "releasing ionising radiation". The shell, it's radioactivity confirmed by two independent German laboratories, was quickly sealed in a lead-lined box. There are few lead lined boxes in Iraq. Recent reports from aid workers and doctors working in Iraq have spoken of many new illnesses amongst children in Iraq. UN personnel and aid workers have seen children playing with empty shells and destroyed tanks in the former battlefields. These weapons have been linked to the rise in childhood cancers in these areas.(13)

During the Gulf War Allied tank crews were exposed to radiation the equivalent of a daily chest x-ray. This dosage is permissible, but not desirable, under current radiological health standards for civilians (14). The use, handling, and clearup of DU munitions has also been linked to the occurrence of 'Gulf War Syndrome', a mysterious illness, mostly affecting the immune system of which former soldiers who served in the Gulf have complained.(15)

Because their moral authority remains unchallenged, the West have been able to re-define DU as conventional weaponry, when by any criteria it is a chemical weapon, and arguably a low - level nuclear one.

Napalm

There is no evidence that Iraq ever used chemical weapons during the Gulf War. Indeed, some Russian missile experts disputed whether chemical warheads could be fitted to the Scud-B missiles without seriously de-stabilising them.(16) Even the alleged gas attacks in the Southern Marshes, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, have been disproved by UN inspectors(17). However, Iraq's reluctance to use chemical weapons was not matched by the Allies. As well as the chemical and biological aftermath of DU - described as "The Agent Orange of the 1990's"(18) - the West was also using napalm.

Napalm is a sticky and highly combustible material which, when dropped in a bomb, disperses over a large area igniting anything in it's path. The Pentagon claimed it was only used to burn off oil in Iraqi defensive trenches. However The Washington Post reported it was used to reach 'entrenched troops'(19) and a US marine officer was quoted as saying "napalm was being used against Iraqi troops as it was against the enemy in Vietnam"(20).

Fuel Air Explosives

Bombs containing fuel air explosives release a cloud of fuel vapours on impact which mix with air and detonate, causing a high pressure blast. A CIA report claimed that "the pressure effects of FAE's approach those produced by low-yield nuclear weapons at short ranges"(21) The Washington Post reported that the US had used BLU-82 bombs against Iraqi front line troops(22). These FAE bombs give an overpressure of 1,000 psi; humans can endure 40 psi. It was also reported that at least 11 of these bombs were used between 7 February 1991 and the commencement of ground hostilities.(23)

Cluster Bombs

Cluster bombs break up into hundreds of bomblets which spread out shrapnel to maximise human injury and damage to machinery. Their use is "illegal under international law even for use against troops"(24). They were used mainly against civilian traffic, in the search for mobile Scud missile launchers, none of which were ever found. It is estimated that 60 - 80,000 cluster bombs were dropped during the conflict(25). They were used on the notorious 'Highway of Death' - the road from Kuwait to Basra in southern Iraq where a 7 mile long convoy of fleeing soldiers, civilians, and foreign workers were mercilessly bombed by allied forces. The US army estimated that 25,000 died in these highway attacks.(26)

Attacks on Civilian Targets

The West presented the Gulf War as a 'clean war' which avoided civilian casualties, and damage. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Much was made of the allies use of 'smart' bombs - weapons guided to their targets by radar, electro-optics, or laser systems. Allied media briefings tended to highlight the use of 'smart' weapons to give the impression of a war where the bombs almost invariably hit their intended military targets with little civilian collateral damage. It was not until after the war that the USAF revealed that 'smart' bombs made up only 8.8% of the munitions dropped.(27)

Far from these bombs being dropped on exclusively military targets, many civilian targets were attacked as well. A daytime air attack on a bridge in Nasiriya, southern Iraq, killed at least 100 civilians(28). On 14 February 1991 a 'smart' bomb attack by the RAF on a bridge in Falluja missed completely, hitting a market 1km from the bridge and killing over 200 civilians(29). A similar attack on a bridge in Samawa killed over 100 civilians.(30)

The entire city of Basra, Iraq's second largest with a population of 800,000 was declared a target by the Allies, despite the Geneva Convention prohibiting area bombing in cities. On 12 February 1991 the Pentagon were claiming there were no civilians left in the city, and that it contained only military targets(31). Nevertheless, reports of hundreds of civilian casualties in and around Basra have emerged since the war.(32)

Perhaps the best known attack on a civilian target was the bombing of the al-Amariyah air raid shelter in western Baghdad, at 4.30 am on February 13 1991. The number of civilians killed varies from the Iraqi governments 300-400, to the Gulf Peace Team's 1,500 (33). The allies claimed the shelter was a 'command and control centre'(34) or a 'leadership bunker'(35). However, it had been built as a civilian installation in 1984, and had been in civilian use for at least 2 weeks prior to the attack.(36)

Conventional Weapons

The West didn't need to use it's nuclear arsenal to destroy Iraq. Approximately 89,000 tonnes of conventional ordnance was dropped by Allied forces during Desert Storm, with a further 20 - 30,000 tons of explosives launched by Allied warships(37), killing as many people as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Shortly after the war, a retired Israeli General wrote "The Iraqi Army was not an unknown quantity. After 8 years of war with Iran it was very clear that it was not a threatening army, it was not a first-class fighting force"(38). Far from being 'the world's fourth largest army' as it had been frequently described in the West, the Iraqi army turned out to be an army of conscripts who during the Gulf War never mustered a single offensive strike, or any effective defensive action. The Iraqi airforce never engaged with Western forces - over 20% flew to Iran and never returned. Nor were the anti-aircraft defenses of any use. In sharp contrast to the Vietnam war, not one B-52 bomber was lost in combat. Allied aircraft loses were lower than the normal combat training rate(39). Between 100,000 - 120,000 Iraqi's were killed during the war, compared to the 147 Western casualties. Western troops reoccupied Kuwait in a ground engagement lasting less than 100 hours(40). Within 3 months of the war the death toll was between 144,000 and 181,000(41). The infant mortality rate in Iraq has tripled since the Gulf War, and life expectancy in Iraq has reduced from 68 to 47 since the war.(42).

References

1.

D. Albright & M. Hibbs, Iraq's Bomb: Blueprints and Artifacts, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January/February 1992, pp30.
2.

Sunday Times, 25 November 1990
3.

Sunday Times, 16 December 1990
4.

Sunday Times, 16 December 1990
5.

Living Marxism No. 70 p4.
6.

G Bukowski, D A Lopez & F M McGehee, Uranium Battlefields Home and Abroad : depleted Uranium Use by US Department of Defense, p16
7.

I Doucet "depleted Uranium, sick soldiers and dead children?", Global Security, Winter 1993, p10
8.

G Bukowski, D A Lopez & F M McGehee, Uranium Battlefields Home and Abroad : depleted Uranium Use by US Department of Defense, p6.
9.

I Doucet "depleted Uranium, sick soldiers and dead children?", Global Security, Winter 1993, p10
10.

I Doucet "depleted Uranium, sick soldiers and dead children?", Global Security, Winter 1993, p10
11.

Nick Cohen, "Radioactive waste left in Gulf by Allies", The Independent, 10 November 1991.
12.

Dr. Eric Hoskins, "Making the desert Glow",New York Times , 21 January 1993.
13.

Dr. Eric Hoskins, "Making the desert Glow",New York Times , 21 January 1993.
14.

James Ridgeway, "Using Nuclear Bullets", Village Voice, 15 January 1991.
15.

Soraya S Nelson, "Radiation, Storm illness link alleged" Army Times, 12 October 1992.
16.

Associated Press, "Iraq - Chemical Weapons", 12 November 1991 ( quoted in D. Albright & M. Hibbs, Iraq's Bomb: Blueprints and Artifacts, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January/February 1992, pp30.)
17.

MEED: Middle Eastern Economic Digest, 11 March 1994, p13. & UNSOM Press Release 28 February 1994.
18.

G Bukowski, D A Lopez & F M McGehee, Uranium Battlefields Home and Abroad : depleted Uranium Use by US Department of Defense.
19.

Anne DeVroy, "Bush Gives until Noon Today to begin Withdrawal from Kuwait", Washington Post , 23 February 1991. (Quoted in, Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time, p45)
20.

"Allies drop Napalm on Iraqi Lines", International herald Tribune, 25 February 1991
21.

David Noble "Professors of Terror", Third World Resurgence (Penang, Malasia) 18/19 (Feb-March 1992)
22.

Jeffrey Smith "U.S. Ground Plans Aims at Quick Strikes, Mass Surrender", Washington Post, 23 February 1991
23.

Soldier of Fortune, July 1992 (Quoted in, Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time, p45)
24.

Ramsey Clarke, The Fire This Time, p73 & Ramsey Clarke and others, War Crimes: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq, p17.
25.

W Arkin, D Durrant & M Cherni, On Impact : Modern Warfare and the Environment - A case study of the Gulf War. (quoted in Ramsey Clarke and others, War Crimes: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq, p87)
26.

W Arkin, D Durrant & M Cherni, On Impact : Modern Warfare and the Environment - A case study of the Gulf War. (quoted in Ramsey Clarke and others, War Crimes: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq, p51)
27.

Needless Deaths in the Gulf War, p114.
28.

New York Times 5 July 1991
29.

Needless Deaths in the Gulf War , p97-101
30.

Needless Deaths in the Gulf War , p102-104
31.

R Atkinson & A DeVoy "Allies to Step up Gulf Air Offensive; Strikes Focus on Iraqis in Kuwait", New York Times, 12 February 1991
32.

See Needless Deaths in the Gulf War for a fuller account.
33.

Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time, p70.
34.

D McManus & J Gerstenzang "Structure Built to Shelter Iraqi Elite, US Says", Los Angeles Times, 15 February 1991
35.

Washington Post, 14 February 1991
36.

The Nation, 6 May 1991 & New York Times, 11 June 1991
37.

Ramsey Clark and others, War Crimes: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq, p87.
38.

Matti Peled, "United States Irresponsibility" in Third World War, Summer 1991 (Quoted in, Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time, p39)
39.

Antony Cordesman "The Persian Gulf War: An Analysis", in The World Almanac and book of Facts: 1992, p35 (Quoted in, Ramsey Clarke, The Fire This Time, p40)
40.

Mike Freeman, The Empire Strikes Back, p31.
41.

I Lee & A Haines, "Health Costs of the Gulf War", British Medical Journal, 3 August 1991 (quoted in Mike Freeman,The Empire Strikes Back , p31.)
42.

Dr. Eric Hoskins (draft report for UNICEF, Baghdad), Children, War and Sanctions

posted 06-08-2001 11:24 AM            

What part of "This is not for you. This is for the others," are you incapable of understanding?

Let me clear up something else that seems beyond your abilty too understand:

"Mav":

And, finally, I'm supposed to automatically NOT believe that you know people that work at McChord. Well, I believe you, especially after you contradict yourself about them. You say:
"These are extremely patriotic people who are willing to accept what they are being told is the truth in regards to this operation."

Then, you say:
"But, like you, they are clearly aware that this operation exists."

Well, which is it? Do they believe in Chemtrails, or do they believe "what they are being told?" Or is what they are being told is that there are chemtrails?

Let me dumb it down for ya' Topgun.

They are aware this operation exists. They refuse to discuss it in detail. They have been ordered to keep their mouths shut. They are more concerned with following orders than the sickness that has resulted from, or the illegality of, this operation.

I surmise that they have been told something that eases any ethical qualms they may have about spraying their countrymen with hazardous chemicals.

Does this make sense?

I didn't come to this board to give you basic lessons in literacy and reading comprehension, tg69.

I suggest you make a quick comparison of the symptoms reported by those afflicted with GWI and those by people affected by CRI.

They are identical.

David, thanks for your posted info. No one is going to convince someone who is paid to, quoting Colin Powell, "kill people and blow things up" that killing people and blowing things up is a questionable activity.

It is simply not in their best interest to do so. Only when he or one of his loved ones beomes desperately ill or dies as a result of this nonsense will he begin to understand our motivations.

And if he was sincere in his comments to Eyesopen, he would not be working for the people responsible for this outrageous treatment of Amercican citizens and their families.

If he were at all concernced or sympathetic, he would be telling his bosses to "pay up", as oppossed to a stranger on an internet forum who broke a lease.

posted 06-08-2001 11:52 PM               

Yep, war is hell. People are going to die. It sucks when it happens, and I have no argument against the statement that killing is wrong.

I saw a lot of errors in your quoted letter. I also saw a lot of (here we go again) extreme left-wing BS. For instance, who is the Gulf Peace Team, and why in the hell would they have such a higher number of casualties from that incident than the Iraqi government itself? Hmmm. Sounds like another agenda at work here.

Also, I see a lot of information that is altered to make the "impression" that we dropped a lot of unguided weapons on civilians. In fact, ALL missions were assessed to see if there was a threat of "collateral damage," or the possibility of injuring civilians if the bombs went astray. ALL missions flown with unguided munitions were against Iraqi military targets well away from civilians. Ever been to Iraq? I have. If you've ever actually been to Iraq you'd see just how far away from civilians and everything else the majority of Iraqi Soldiers were. I'm actually surprised to see the percentage of precision guided munitions as high as it is. Speaking of unguided munitions, both the F-16 and the A-10 are very accurate at dropping them, much more so than in past wars like Vietnam and WWII. I train with unguided munitions every day, and most pilots that I know can put one right on top of what we're trying to hit.

There's also the sentence conveniently tucked away between cited references that states that "cluster munitions were used mainly against Iraqi civilians." That sentence is one of the more inflammatory on the letter, yet where is that statement backed up with a cited reference? Besides, if the author is citing BS sources (like the Gulf Peace Team,) then I suspect that many other citations are suspect as well. Once again, facts and non-facts thrown together into a pile made out to be the truth. But hey, it's posted online so it must be true, right?

Also, David for Chem11)
Would you tell Chem11 for me "I know you are but what am I" for me? Could you also tell him that as the person who gets paid to "kill stuff and blow things up" that I am probably more of a peace advocate than he is, and not just because it's my pink body who is getting shot at in return? Could you also ask him why I should quit my job just because us vets are being poorly treated in VA hospitals? And finally, could you tell him that I know someone who thinks that he's cute and would like him to ask her to the prom?

Chem11-

If your friends are "ordered" to keep their mouths shut, then they are just as liable for whatever illegal activity they are covering up for. As military members, we are OBLIGATED and REQUIRED to not obey an order which is illegal. If I was told to spray the civilian population (which is illegal) then I would either have to disobey the order or I would have to bear the same responsibility for the act as the person giving the order. So, whichever of you or your friends are lying, there is one thing for sure. Someone is. I don't buy your story, unless your pals have a room reserved for them at Ft. Leavenworth. Like my buddy Tom Cruise says, show me the money.

Also, I apologize for replying to your post addressed to other people. Instead, replace every time I say your name and put Rosie O'Donnell in it's place. See? All better.

Maverick

posted 06-09-2001 12:34 AM            

Because I love you so much, tg69, and because
you are one of the few people I trust(simply because you are so ignorant of what's truly going on around you) I am going to give you a little prize to scamper back to the hoaxers board with.

You aren't going to understand this, either, but there may be someone there that does. But it doesn't matter because, believe it or not, you are going to think I'm the coolest thing since aluminum chaff.

Feel the love: http://network54.com/Hide/Forum/thread?forumid=125334&messageid=992047990

Wait! Before you hit that link, flyboy, I want to give you a final piece of advice...
nothing in this world of chemtrails and advanced Scalar technology is anywhere near what it seems.

posted 06-09-2001 12:46 AM               

I'm not scampering. I actually have no clue what you're talking about on your post. Is it the right link? Or is this another veiled post addressed to someone yet realy meant for someone else?

I'll let you deal with your friend TML if you don't want to answer this. I'm sure that somebody will be able to use your link for something. I won't.

posted 06-09-2001 03:56 AM            

Hey, this took me no small amount of time you debunking dunderheads! You see, CD, there's a big difference between making baseless accusations... and presenting evidence.