View Full Version : The WORST President in US History
MIV>. TU! I had forgotten that and it was not in my memory banks when I wrote what I wrote.
Thanks for the correction, OM!
73
Chuck k3FT
W3MIV
05-05-2004, 05:31 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3FT @ May 05 2004,09:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">MIV>. TU! I had forgotten that and it was not in my memory banks when I wrote what I wrote.
Thanks for the correction, OM!
73
Chuck k3FT[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If SHE has forgotten that, it may just be brought to her attention in ways she finds somewhat less than salubrious, what?
I'll cut off the buttons. You can bang the drum. Now, who amongst you will provide the rail?
KC2HJN
05-05-2004, 07:14 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's not compare, please, the United States use of 2 nuclear weapons against Japan int he same breath or context as Iraq's use of chem weapons against other people.
The two are totally in different universes.
(I might add.. that the Allied troops WERE gassed with Mustard agent back in the earlier World Wars, BTW)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why not...I'm not saying who is right or wrong, merely pointing out that we too have used WMD in the past.
As for the gas, yes gas was used by many during that time.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq's track record IS one of agression against their neigbors AND couple that with the recently discovered evil mechanisms that were used against dissidents, etc. you have about as complete a picture of a group led by a man who HAS, DID, and (while he was in power) DOES use such methods against those whom he believed were his enemies. #THAT past (and PRESENT - until deposed) actions DEFINETLY can be used to predict FUTURE actions. #Why? Because he showed ZERO interest in changing and exhibited FULL Intent to continue his ways.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You could use the same exact arguement about Israel, who we give billions of dollars in 'aid' to. I don't see any threat of US warplanes droping bombs on them though. (and please don't use the defense arguement, BOTH sides in that conflict use aggression against civilians and both fit the description of 'terrorism'
Saddam WAS A BAD GUY, this is not in dispute, the question is, was he a THREAT TO US. This is what our government said, Iraq was a direct threat to us. They have given NO evidence to us or our allies that hasn't since been discredited. Granted, as you said, we are not privy to all the info they have but I would think they could at least give one CREDIBE bit of evidence to the American people. Our own intelligence agencies, if you recall, cautioned our administration about Iraq because they couldn't back up many of the claims Bush attributed to them.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, in HIS case.. past is prologue and track record DOES prove intent. #ERGO.. the justifcation to go in a depose him was based on firm and reasonable logic. The fact that WMD's were NOT found 'NOW' does not.. in any way, shape, or form, obviate them as a valid PART of the reason to do what we did.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sure it does. If the intelligence was not there, as some in the FBI & CIA claim, the justification was not there.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In other words.. the Marine stuck in a foxhole on an island in the SOuth Pacific which is being hard-fought to win from the Japs for days.. would report a FAR DIFFERENT outlook on how things are going than a guy who ran into only sporadic 'mop up' fighting on another island that had been overrun but not yet fully claimed. #NEITHER IS WRONG.. but NEITHER HAS a full picture ot make any rational statements about 'how things are going'[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree 100% but the guy I was refering to was not in a limited area or position. I know of four countries he operated in during the 'war on terror in different capacities. I also know there is much he doesn't talk about so to me his views of how things are over there are MANY times more accurate than me or you could ever know. He is also a reasonable and open minded kind of person, if you knew him, you would understand why I tend to trust his opinion.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please provide full and valid sourcing for your claim that depleted uranium rounds left in a place are, in fact, doing what you say they are doing.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It's a no brainer really. Depleted uranium is called such because it is not usefull for nuclear weapons and has had it's usefullness for reactors 'depleted'. As an example, I'm sure you understand that used fuel rods are still extremely radioactive. Now imagine taking a fuel rod and pulverizing it, much like what happens to any kind of ammunition used to destroy armored vehicles. Multiply that by thousands, take those chips and powdered remains and spread them all over your town. Not a pleasant thought. Our troops are living in those conditions. It is the dust particles, when inhaled, that are the real danger. DU that remains outside the body, while radioactive, doesn't pose as great a hazzard as, say, enriched uranium, but is still a hazard.
A simple google search will give more info than I could give here.
Hm,
Last time I checked the United States didn't have 30,000 people buried in mass graves
KC2HJN
05-07-2004, 10:40 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ May 07 2004,14:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hm,
Last time I checked the United States didn't have 30,000 people buried in mass graves[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's a terrible thing, but the US also didn't fight a ten year war, then shorty after get bombarded by a world superpower, then face ten years of sanctions (during which, bombing continued). Hundreds of thousands died during that time.
It may be noted that the US military has considered mass graves for our own troops should they die from chemical or biological weapons. (only pointing that out because, as most know, chemical weapons were used by both sides during the Iran-Iraq war)
ai4ep
05-07-2004, 10:50 PM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif maybe since Mr. Kerry is fading in popularity that I should run...or am I too polite ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
73
---ai4ep---
W3MIV
05-07-2004, 10:58 PM
I'll vote for you, EP. You sure as he... uh, HECK can't do a whole lot worse than Kerry would do.
Just don't ask for campaign contributions. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
KA8NCR
05-08-2004, 01:42 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
It's a no brainer really. Depleted uranium is called such because it is not usefull for nuclear weapons and has had it's usefullness for reactors 'depleted'. As an example, I'm sure you understand that used fuel rods are still extremely radioactive. Now imagine taking a fuel rod and pulverizing it, much like what happens to any kind of ammunition used to destroy armored vehicles. Multiply that by thousands, take those chips and powdered remains and spread them all over your town. Not a pleasant thought. Our troops are living in those conditions. It is the dust particles, when inhaled, that are the real danger. DU that remains outside the body, while radioactive, doesn't pose as great a hazzard as, say, enriched uranium, but is still a hazard.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What's used for weapons of this type isn't derived from enriched uranium from a reactor, it's what is left over when the radioactive isotopes are removed. What you get from a nuclear reactor *can't* be made less radioactive. If you could, the whole nuclear waste storage issue would be moot. This stuff has never been in the form of fuel rods.
The problems of these weapons isn't because the material is radioactive (it's about as radioactive as lead, but vastly more dense), it's because uranium is toxic just as lead is toxic. And we all know what happens if you eat too many paint chips -- you get to be a member of the Bush family.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ka8ncr @ May 07 2004,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What's used for weapons of this type isn't derived from enriched uranium from a reactor, it's what is left over when the radioactive isotopes are removed. #What you get from a nuclear reactor *can't* be made less radioactive. #If you could, the whole nuclear waste storage issue would be moot.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
He hit the nail on the head. I've handled DU rounds, soldiers do every day, they are not highly radioactive... they are barely so. The tritium in your watch is more radioactive.
It's the density and the the fact its in such a fine pulverised form that poses the hazard, from inhalation. Its a heavy metal like lead.
We are not spreading reactor fuel as many on the eco-commu-left try to illustrate. Hell the armor in some of our vehicles is partially DU, and soldiers spend months of thier lives in them 20-22 hours a day, for careers that last 20 or more years sometimes.
http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/faq/du_faq.shtml
KC2HJN
05-08-2004, 03:37 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ka8ncr @ May 07 2004,21:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
It's a no brainer really. Depleted uranium is called such because it is not usefull for nuclear weapons and has had it's usefullness for reactors 'depleted'. As an example, I'm sure you understand that used fuel rods are still extremely radioactive. Now imagine taking a fuel rod and pulverizing it, much like what happens to any kind of ammunition used to destroy armored vehicles. Multiply that by thousands, take those chips and powdered remains and spread them all over your town. Not a pleasant thought. Our troops are living in those conditions. It is the dust particles, when inhaled, that are the real danger. DU that remains outside the body, while radioactive, doesn't pose as great a hazzard as, say, enriched uranium, but is still a hazard.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What's used for weapons of this type isn't derived from enriched uranium from a reactor, it's what is left over when the radioactive isotopes are removed. #What you get from a nuclear reactor *can't* be made less radioactive. #If you could, the whole nuclear waste storage issue would be moot. #This stuff has never been in the form of fuel rods.
The problems of these weapons isn't because the material is radioactive (it's about as radioactive as lead, but vastly more dense), it's because uranium is toxic just as lead is toxic. #And we all know what happens if you eat too many paint chips -- you get to be a member of the Bush family.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, I worded it wrong. I didn't mean to imply DU was from spent fuel rods. DU is what left after the isotop U235 is extracted from uranium ore. U238 is what is left. As I stated, the hazzard is from inhaling the dust particles. U238 is a radioactive substance though, but when outside the body is not a great threat. Inhaling it, aside from the toxicity, is also dangerous.
THANK GOD someone with KNOWLEDGE of DU material posted.
Appreciate the truth being put out there. I had the info but doubted anyone on the left would believe me. But someone who HANDLED them and knows about them spoke up! EXCELLENT
One GOOD thing about DU rounds?
They tend to penetrate armored BAD GUY transports and fragment, vaporize, and carom around insde the box which then causes them to stop, abruptly, and then be unable to engage others and kill them.
DU rounds from a tank.. ONE SHOT.. ONE KILL! Saves weaponry, saves money, saves time, and allows more effective action in keeping the bad guys off balance.
A good tank crew, a good laser sight, a good DU round makes for a VERY BAD day for the bad guys.
I've been witness to tests at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in MD where they were test firing DU rounds at LARGE reinforced blocks of steel encased concrete. These blocks were about as big as a old style VW Beetle. The round went in ONE end and came out the other. As expected. there was a NICE LARGE HOLE in the exit point and the steel was a bit the worse for wear.
K3FT
KC2HJN
05-08-2004, 02:06 PM
FT. I don't think anything I said was incorrect. Maybe not stated clearly, but not wrong. The effects of DU are not fully known because 'studies' conducted have been for short term effects. While mildly radioactive, and not a threat EXTERNALLY, DU, when inhaled remains in the body for many years. It is this LONG TERM exposure that is the danger. DU mostly radiates alpha particles, but does emit small amounts of beta and gamma radiation. When lodged in the lungs some of it eventually finds it way into other parts of the body and stays there.
Do you get your info from Pentagon studies and scientists on the government payroll ? I wouldn't call them impartial sources. Remember agent orange? How long did it take for our government to admit it caused much illness among our troops?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ May 08 2004,07:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FT. I don't think anything I said was incorrect. Maybe not stated clearly, but not wrong. The effects of DU are not fully known because 'studies' conducted have been for short term effects. While mildly radioactive, and not a threat EXTERNALLY, DU, when inhaled remains in the body for many years. It is this LONG TERM exposure that is the danger. DU mostly radiates alpha particles, but does emit small amounts of beta and gamma radiation. When lodged in the lungs some of it eventually finds it way into other parts of the body and stays there.
Do you get your info from Pentagon studies and scientists on the government payroll ? I wouldn't call them impartial sources. Remember agent orange? How long did it take for our government to admit it caused much illness among our troops?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well, I trust scientists and the basic laws of physics over a bunch of websites with obvois left wing agendas, where you seem to be getting most of your info. You link on your sig line make me laugh every time I go to it.
As far as not thinking anything you said was incorrect, lets see:
Depleted uranium is called such because it is not usefull for nuclear weapons and has had it's usefullness for reactors 'depleted'. As an example, I'm sure you understand that used fuel rods are still extremely radioactive. Now imagine taking a fuel rod and pulverizing it, much like what happens to any kind of ammunition used to destroy armored vehicles.
You imply that
DU rounds are made from spent fuel rods... false
DU rounds are exctremely radioactive..... false
DU rounds are the equivelant of pulverising a spent fuel rod...... false
Of course then you start the typical liberal backpedaling when your exaggerations are shown for what they are.
Fact... DU is 40 times less radioactive than straight uranium. DU is less radiactive than the tritium in your watch. The hazard from DU on the battlefield is greatest immediatly after the impact of the round, and diminishes quite rapidly, by hours, after that. Don't hang out in enemy tanks, and you don't have much to worry about.
DU's toxicity as a heavy metal greatly outweighs its toxicity from the slight residual radiation. But its much easier to scream "uranium" and scare those who don't bother to educate themselves. I've got news for you, the battlefield is a nasty place, and we go there to kill the enemy and break thier stuff the most effective way possible. DU's advantage there greatly outweighs the slight risk it poses to our soldiers after the fact, and saves way more lives than it will ever negativly affect, if there are any.
W3MIV
05-08-2004, 02:59 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ May 08 2004,07:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FT. I don't think anything I said was incorrect. Maybe not stated clearly, but not wrong. The effects of DU are not fully known because 'studies' conducted have been for short term effects. While mildly radioactive, and not a threat EXTERNALLY, DU, when inhaled remains in the body for many years. It is this LONG TERM exposure that is the danger. DU mostly radiates alpha particles, but does emit small amounts of beta and gamma radiation. When lodged in the lungs some of it eventually finds it way into other parts of the body and stays there.
Do you get your info from Pentagon studies and scientists on the government payroll ? I wouldn't call them impartial sources. Remember agent orange? How long did it take for our government to admit it caused much illness among our troops?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Who has done studies with regard to the particulates that would result from the use of a DU round?
How many DU rounds were fired and into how many impact sites?
How does such a projectile fragment upon impact against armor plate ? Against soft soil? Against concrete? Water?
How would the size and density of any such particulates that may result from the impact of a round affect their aerial suspension characteristics? Given the density of DU, would they settle at a higher rate? Lower? How long would they remain in the air?
What amount of aerosol particulate would result from the use of a round that would then readily invade the lungs? How many particles per pint of air would be dangerous?
What is the half-life of the materials in a DU projectile?
How much of the projectile is actually DU and not cladding?
How much difference is there between Agent Orange and the chemicals farmers now apply prior to no-till?
How much does application modality versus chemical composition contribute to the damages that resulted from Agent Orange?
Done any research? Or is all of this just more speculation about the evils of government as showcased on internet sites of dubious accuracy and completeness of content?
And if you don't trust the government research, whom would you suggest? An internet source?
KC2HJN
05-08-2004, 04:56 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as not thinking anything you said was incorrect, lets see:
Depleted uranium is called such because it is not usefull for nuclear weapons and has had it's usefullness for reactors 'depleted'. As an example, I'm sure you understand that used fuel rods are still extremely radioactive. Now imagine taking a fuel rod and pulverizing it, much like what happens to any kind of ammunition used to destroy armored vehicles.
You imply that
DU rounds are made from spent fuel rods... false
DU rounds are exctremely radioactive..... false
DU rounds are the equivelant of pulverising a spent fuel rod...... false
Of course then you start the typical liberal backpedaling when your #exaggerations are shown for what they are.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, I stated I worded it wrong and corrected myself. No backpeddling. The claim is the same. Liberal? I don't think you understand the meaning of the word. Stop listening to Hannity and Limbaugh.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fact... DU is 40 times less radioactive than straight uranium. DU is less radiactive than the tritium in your watch. The hazard from DU on the battlefield is greatest immediatly after the impact of the round, and diminishes quite rapidly, by hours, after that. Don't hang out in enemy tanks, and you don't have much to worry about.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I trust scientists and the basic laws of physics over a bunch of websites with obvois left wing agendas, where you seem to be getting most of your info. You link on your sig line make me laugh every time I go to it.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I didn't get it from that site.
From The CDC:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Because uranium decays by alpha particles, external exposure to uranium is not as dangerous as exposure to other radioactive elements because the skin will block the alpha particles. Ingestion of high concentrations of uranium, however, can cause severe health effects, such as cancer of the bone or liver and kidney damage. Inhaling large concentrations of uranium can cause lung cancer from the exposure to alpha particles. Uranium is also a toxic chemical, meaning that ingestion of uranium can cause kidney damage from its chemical properties much sooner than its radioactive properties would cause cancers of the bone or liver.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
FACT: The danger is not for hours...DU has a half life of nearly 4.5 billion years.
FACT: Upon impact, approx. 40% of the round is turned into an aerosol of uranium oxides. This can ramain airborn for extened periods and can potentially travel many miles.
Radioactivity (per scond) in 1 milligram of U-238 at Secular Equilibrium.
U-238 #12.4 alpha particles
Th-234 #12.4 beta particles
Pa-234 #12.4 beta particles
U-234 #0.017 alpha particles
# # # #
In the course of one year, 1 milligram of uranium emits 390 million alpha particles, 780 million beta particles and associated gamma rays. This is over one billion high-energy, ionizing, radioactive particles and rays which can produce extensive biological damage.
The energy of a single alpha particle exceeds the amount required to damage important macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, enzymes and proteins. It does this by breaking molecular bonds, chemical reactions, which alter or destroy the shape, organization and function of these molecules.
These are FACTS. The only variable is how much gets into the system. Government studies like to state how uranium is naturally occuring and all around us. This is true but they don't make the comparison between minute trace amounts and concentrated exposure.
W3MIV
05-08-2004, 05:15 PM
HJN: "These are FACTS. The only variable is how much gets into the system. Government studies like to state how uranium is naturally occuring and all around us. This is true but they don't make the comparison between minute trace amounts and concentrated exposure."
You are doing precisely the same thing you accuse the government of doing, but you are starting at the other end of the train.
Go back and read your own quotation which references "HIGH CONCENTRATIONS." You have no evidence, only speculation; and that speculation is culled and worked to fit your own agenda, not objective truth.
W3MIV
05-08-2004, 05:16 PM
HJN: "FACT: Upon impact, approx. 40% of the round is turned into an aerosol of uranium oxides. This can ramain airborn for extened periods and can potentially travel many miles."
Conjecture without citation.
KC2HJN
05-08-2004, 05:42 PM
MIV,
This isn't meant to be a chemistry or physics lesson. It's just an internet forum. The information is out there. Look for it, you may be suprised.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And if you don't trust the government research, whom would you suggest?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't distrust all government research, but I think even the most rabid government supporter can see the obvious conflict in quoting only pentagon and defense industry sources.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Go back and read your own quotation which references "HIGH CONCENTRATIONS." You have no evidence, only speculation; and that speculation is culled and worked to fit your own agenda, not objective truth.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It's from the center for disease control. I tend to trust that they did the research to come to the conclusion that inhaling high concentrations of U238 is dangerous, and didn't just make it up.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ May 08 2004,09:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as not thinking anything you said was incorrect, lets see:
Depleted uranium is called such because it is not usefull for nuclear weapons and has had it's usefullness for reactors 'depleted'. As an example, I'm sure you understand that used fuel rods are still extremely radioactive. Now imagine taking a fuel rod and pulverizing it, much like what happens to any kind of ammunition used to destroy armored vehicles.
You imply that
DU rounds are made from spent fuel rods... false
DU rounds are exctremely radioactive..... false
DU rounds are the equivelant of pulverising a spent fuel rod...... false
Of course then you start the typical liberal backpedaling when your #exaggerations are shown for what they are.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, I stated I worded it wrong and corrected myself. No backpeddling. The claim is the same. Liberal? I don't think you understand the meaning of the word. Stop listening to Hannity and Limbaugh.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fact... DU is 40 times less radioactive than straight uranium. DU is less radiactive than the tritium in your watch. The hazard from DU on the battlefield is greatest immediatly after the impact of the round, and diminishes quite rapidly, by hours, after that. Don't hang out in enemy tanks, and you don't have much to worry about.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I trust scientists and the basic laws of physics over a bunch of websites with obvois left wing agendas, where you seem to be getting most of your info. You link on your sig line make me laugh every time I go to it.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I didn't get it from that site.
From The CDC:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Because uranium decays by alpha particles, external exposure to uranium is not as dangerous as exposure to other radioactive elements because the skin will block the alpha particles. Ingestion of high concentrations of uranium, however, can cause severe health effects, such as cancer of the bone or liver and kidney damage. Inhaling large concentrations of uranium can cause lung cancer from the exposure to alpha particles. Uranium is also a toxic chemical, meaning that ingestion of uranium can cause kidney damage from its chemical properties much sooner than its radioactive properties would cause cancers of the bone or liver.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
FACT: The danger is not for hours...DU has a half life of nearly 4.5 billion years.
FACT: Upon impact, approx. 40% of the round is turned into an aerosol of uranium oxides. This can ramain airborn for extened periods and can potentially travel many miles.
Radioactivity (per scond) in 1 milligram of U-238 at Secular Equilibrium.
U-238 #12.4 alpha particles
Th-234 #12.4 beta particles
Pa-234 #12.4 beta particles
U-234 #0.017 alpha particles
# # # #
In the course of one year, 1 milligram of uranium emits 390 million alpha particles, 780 million beta particles and associated gamma rays. This is over one billion high-energy, ionizing, radioactive particles and rays which can produce extensive biological damage.
The energy of a single alpha particle exceeds the amount required to damage important macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, enzymes and proteins. It does this by breaking molecular bonds, chemical reactions, which alter or destroy the shape, organization and function of these molecules.
These are FACTS. The only variable is how much gets into the system. Government studies like to state how uranium is naturally occuring and all around us. This is true but they don't make the comparison between minute trace amounts and concentrated exposure.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The whole reason the greatest risk is within a few hours is because only for a few hours is any high concentration of airborne particles found. DU is a heavy metal, and what doesn't settle quickly gets dispersed into the atmosphere quite rapidly, as any airborne contamninate.
It has nothing to do with half-life, it has to do with the amount available for inhalation. I guess if you went out into the desert and snorted the dust from the interior of a knocked out vehicle like cocaine its dangerous for a long time, but as far as airborne danger its only the first few hours.
Concentrated exposure only occuers within the first few hours, and after than only if your stupid enough to get into the vehicle and lick the insides. You state the danger is in concentrated exposure, then go on about it stayed airborne and traveling for miles... which is called dispersal, whereby it is no longer concentrated.
W3MIV
05-08-2004, 07:01 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ May 08 2004,10:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's from the center for disease control. I tend to trust that they did the research to come to the conclusion that inhaling high concentrations of U238 is dangerous, and didn't just make it up.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The same folks that did the research into the efficacy of gun control laws. Nuff said.
KC2HJN
05-08-2004, 08:05 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The whole reason the greatest risk is within a few hours is because only for a few hours is any high concentration of airborne particles found. DU is a heavy metal, and what doesn't settle quickly gets dispersed into the atmosphere quite rapidly, as any airborne contamninate.
It has nothing to do with half-life, it has to do with the amount available for inhalation. I guess if you went out into the desert and snorted the dust from the interior of a knocked out vehicle like cocaine its dangerous for a long time, but as far as airborne danger its only the first few hours.
Concentrated exposure only occuers within the first few hours, and after than only if your stupid enough to get into the vehicle and lick the insides. You state the danger is in concentrated exposure, then go on about it stayed airborne and traveling for miles... which is called dispersal, whereby it is no longer concentrated. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
PEP, I pointed out the half life to illustrate DU persistence in the enviornment. DU persists in the soil and gets kicked up over and over like any dust in the desert. Our troops will get repeated exposures, albeit in increasingly lower dosages. I fail to see why it's so hard to be a little concerned for our troops who may be exposed to something hazardous (as opposed to enemy fire).
MIV: That's the best you could do. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
KA8NCR
05-08-2004, 10:07 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ May 08 2004,10:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Go back and read your own quotation which references "HIGH CONCENTRATIONS." You have no evidence, only speculation; and that speculation is culled and worked to fit your own agenda, not objective truth.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I don't distrust all government research, but I think even the most rabid government supporter can see the obvious conflict in quoting only pentagon and defense industry sources.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Who was it that said a distrust of the government is healthy?
Jefferson?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
It's from the center for disease control. I tend to trust that they did the research to come to the conclusion that inhaling high concentrations of U238 is dangerous, and didn't just make it up.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm not certain what flavor of uranium is in depleated rounds; but are you certain it's 238?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ May 08 2004,13:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The whole reason the greatest risk is within a few hours is because only for a few hours is any high concentration of airborne particles found. DU is a heavy metal, and what doesn't settle quickly gets dispersed into the atmosphere quite rapidly, as any airborne contamninate.
It has nothing to do with half-life, it has to do with the amount available for inhalation. I guess if you went out into the desert and snorted the dust from the interior of a knocked out vehicle like cocaine its dangerous for a long time, but as far as airborne danger its only the first few hours.
Concentrated exposure only occuers within the first few hours, and after than only if your stupid enough to get into the vehicle and lick the insides. You state the danger is in concentrated exposure, then go on about it stayed airborne and traveling for miles... which is called dispersal, whereby it is no longer concentrated. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
PEP, I pointed out the half life to illustrate DU persistence in the enviornment. #DU persists in the soil and gets kicked up over and over like any dust in the desert. Our troops will get repeated exposures, albeit in increasingly lower dosages. #I fail to see why it's so hard to be a little concerned for our troops who may be exposed to something hazardous (as opposed to enemy fire).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Because the hazard is so slight, and as of yet (after 15+ years of using DU) not shown to be signifigant.
Contrast that with the benifits of DU, which gives us a great edge in killing the enemy quicker and easier and more efficently before he kills our troops. DU is shown to greatly increase our effectiveness on the battlefield, thereby saving soldiers lives.
Most of those who raise the concerns about DU, and protest it the most, come form the same side that tends to protest everything the military does except make cuts. The left uses every chance it can get, and this is no exception, to make our military less efficient and cut it whenever they can. They don't bother to mention that it is proven to save lives, only run around like chicken little screaming "URANIUM!" with no real evidince that its a problem, and failing to see the huge benefits.
Let's get this back on track...Worst President in History...
Here is what one past Congressman has to say:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
A Republican's Case Against George W. Bush
By Paul Findley
April 17, 2004
Former Congressman on Bush's Foreign Policy
DURING MY LONG life, America has surmounted many severe challenges. As a teenager, I experienced the Great Depression. In World War II, I saw war close-up as a Navy Seabee. As a country newspaper editor, I watched the Korean War from afar. As a Member of Congress, I agonized through the Vietnam War from start to finish. During these challenges I never for a moment worried about America's ultimate survival with its great principles and ideals still intact.
Today, for the first time, I worry deeply about America's future. We are in a deep hole. I believe President George W. Bush's decision to initiate war on Iraq will be the greatest and most costly blunder in American history. He has set America on the wrong course.
He orders the development and production of a new generation of nuclear arms for US use only, meanwhile threatening other nations Iran and North Korea, for example, against acquiring any of its own.
Unleashing America's mighty sword, he brings about regime changes in Afghanistan and Iraq, but mires our forces in quagmires from which escape seems unlikely for many years.
He isolates America from common undertakings with time-tested allies. He trivializes the United Nations and violates its charter.
The president offers wars without end, and the Congress shouts its approval. But his use of America's vast arsenal is so reckless that he is regarded widely as the most dangerous man in the world.
Frustrated by Iraqi dissidents who protest the occupation of their country by killing US troops almost daily, the president reverts to war measures. He orders heavy aerial bombing in wide areas of the countryside.
Even as body bags pile high, the president seems oblivious to war's horror. The rockets and one-ton bombs may kill a few Iraqi guerrillas and cause others to pull back and pause, but they kill and maim innocent civilians, level homes, turn neighborhoods into rubble, and permanently blight many lives. They create deep-seated outrage, not cooperation.
The Iraqi carnage is piled alongside the simultaneous destruction and blighting of American lives. More than 500 US military personnel have been killed and, according to one estimate, nearly 10,000 have been wounded. Ponder that fact. Ten thousand American families permanently blighted in a war the United States initiated. Mark Twain, writing of war, once asked, "Will we wring the hearts of the unoffending widows with unavailing grief?"
The answer: People worldwide, especially in Iraq and Palestine, are livid over grievances against America. Almost all Iraqis are glad Saddam Hussein is out of power, but many of them the total may be a substantial majority, see America as arrogant, biased, untrustworthy, and bent on world domination.
Here are some of the reasons:
* In the l980s the height of Saddam's cruel treatment of Kurds and other Iraqi citizens the US government served as the dictator's silent, uncomplaining partner, helping him battle Iran by providing intelligence and critical military supplies, even some components of weapons of mass destruction.
* At the end of the 1991 Gulf war, Iraqis had a bitter experience with the president's father. President George Bush, Sr. publicly urged the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam. His call prompted a strong uprising, but Bush refused US support in any form. This bleak rejection prompted Saddam to use helicopter gunships to slaughter dissidents by the hundreds. He had retained use of these lethal aircraft in a provision of the U.S.-approved armistice.
* Iraqis also remembers bitterly that US fighter planes enforced sanctions on the people of Iraq for a decade after the Gulf war. This embargo was so harsh it led to immense civilian suffering, including the death of at least a half-million Iraqi infants.
* Today, Iraqis are wary of the president's motives and dependability. Many doubt that his true objectives are, as he now states, establishing freedom and democracy in their country, or, as he earlier stated, destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Aware that he ignored offers of conciliation from Saddam's emissaries before the invasion, they believe he harbors dreams of an American empire and wanted the war in Iraq, come what may.
* Their greatest and most deep-seated complaint is Bush's failure to make even the slightest move to halt America's anti-Arab bias. For example, the president has made no effort to distance America from Israel's colonialism.
He pays lip-service to statehood as a goal for the Palestinians, but he has done nothing to stop Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's brutality of Palestinians assassinations, military forays that leave vast death and destruction, high fences that confine Palestinians like cattle, and the steady usurpation of more Palestinian land.
Bush seems unconcerned by the worldwide outrage at America's massive, unconditional, uncritical support of Israel, without which the Jewish state could never have carried out its humiliation and devastation of Palestinian society.
Bush is overwhelmed by the influence of religious zealots both Zionist and fundamentalist Christian. He ignores America's own heavy guilt for the plight of Palestinians. He fails to recognize that more than a billion Muslims worldwide, along with many millions of non-Muslims, are deeply aggrieved at this complicity.
Bush offers an exquisite example of close-in hypocrisy. On one side of a Middle East border, he tries to convince Iraqi Arabs that he offers them democracy and freedom, while at the same time, on the other side of the border, he supports Israel's violent denial of these identical rights for Palestinian Arabs.
Iraqis worry that US occupation will become a new colonialism indefinite US control of Iraqi oil reserves, Israeli-style brutality, and a U.S.-forced treaty that will keep Iraq from helping the Palestinians.
President Bush is so befuddled by the awful carnage of 9/11 and rumors of more assaults to come that he does not see what is vivid to most of the world the real ground zero of terrorism is in Palestine, not Manhattan. He ignores the real ground zero at great peril to America.
This issue surmounts all others in the presidential political campaign. It impels me to speak out against what George W. Bush is doing. I am a Republican, and I will remain in the Party of Lincoln. I feel no joy in making this case against the president. He may be sincere in his stewardship, but he is wrong, dead wrong in the direction he is taking our country.
What should be done? Must the president proceed with wars without end?
The president's best war decision is a purely political one, and it is plain, peaceful, generous and just. He must make a clean break from Israel's scofflaw behavior.
If Bush has the will, he can easily free himself and America. If he acts, he will transform the grim scene in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East into bright promise. Any day he chooses, the president can instantly without firing a shot quiet guerrilla warfare in Iraq and anti-American protests throughout the world.
All he needs to do is inform Sharon that all aid will be suspended until Israel vacates the Arab territory Israeli forces seized in June 1967. U.S. aid is literally Israel's lifeline, so the ultimatum would be electrifying evidence that the United States, at long last, will do what is right for Arabs and Muslims, while still protecting Israel from attack. If Bush acts, the Iraqi people will have reason to believe, for the first time, that the US government truly opposes colonialism.
The ultimatum would prompt rejoicing worldwide, not just among Iraqis and Palestinians. Opinion polls show that a large majority of Israelis, weary of the long, bloody struggle to subjugate the Palestinians, would welcome coexistence with an independent, peaceful Palestine.
An impressive foundation for this presidential ultimatum already exists. All member states of the Arab League, plus Hamas and Hezbollah, unanimously offered peace-for-withdrawal four years ago. A similar plan called the Geneva Accord recently was announced jointly by former officials of Israel and Palestine. Almost simultaneously, four retired heads of Israeli intelligence even urged full, unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza.
By standing resolutely for justice for Palestinians, who are mostly Muslim, Bush would virtually end anti-American protests and strengthen moderate forces worldwide.
Will Bush liberate America from endless wars and chart a constructive, peaceful new future for our nation? If he does so promptly, he will be a shoo-in for reelection. If he does not, I will join other Republicans there will be many of us in urging his defeat.
Paul Findley, a Member of Congress for 22 years, is the author of They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby and chairman emeritus of the Council for the National Interest. He writes books and articles from his home in Jacksonville, IL and lectures widely on international affairs.
Paul Craig Roberts
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So, anybody find fault with that?
I don't see how we can even consider re-electing Bush and the PNAC bunch...
Yes.
This just shows the problem started before George Bush. Correct me if I'm wrong but Clinton had 8 years to mitigate some of this impact. Which he did nothing!
The President (George, Bill, anyone) is in the position for a reason. He has to weigh the data, solicit feedback, and make decisions that will impact the world.
This goes with the job.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ May 11 2004,10:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes.
This just shows the problem started before George Bush. #Correct me if I'm wrong but Clinton had 8 years to mitigate some of this impact. #Which he did nothing!
The President (George, Bill, anyone) is in the position for a reason. He has to weigh the data, solicit feedback, and make decisions that will impact the world.
This goes with the job.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree, Clinton did nothing about Saddam... There was nothing needed... He was effectively contained in his own little country...
We don't have the right to interfer with countries that don't directly threaten our peace... and Bush had to LIE about it all to convince the Americam Public to go there... And he KNEW he was lying the whole time he was doing it...
Some folks just don't get it...
One thing everyone is forgetting is that Bush did consult the congress and the decision to move was supported by them at the time.
Right or wrong -- the decision has been made. Question is what is the next step.
No offense intended, pointing fingers just won't fix the problem.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ May 11 2004,11:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One thing everyone is forgetting is that Bush did consult the congress and the decision to move was supported by them at the time.
Right or wrong -- the decision has been made. #Question is what is the next step.
No offense intended, pointing fingers just won't fix the problem.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
WE are NOT forgetting he LIED to the congress to get them to go along with his Neocon scheme...
That is the most important point at this time!... Because we are looking at an election that could allow these folks to go on with their lies and deceit...
What needs to be done? Easy:
Get rid of the Neocons and get out of Iraq... Let them figure out their own problems... If the rise up and build a democracy, fine, if not, fine ... but we need to keep our stinkin' finger out of other folks problems... and for heaven's sake, keep the CIA from causing more problems... spy all ya want... but no more nation controlling actions!!!!
Next, get with the UN and try and clean up this mess... Try to influency people with words and deeds that befit a free people... show them by actions what can be done in a free society...
Use Radio to influence the people, but DON'T tell lies... tell the truth...good or bad... tell the truth...
If a country asks for our help as Kuwait did... DO IT... Free them from their foreign oppressor and then get the hell out and leave them be...
Quit making decisions based on what a few companies in the US want... Let free trade make the decisions...
Keep a strong military so that should we be attacked again we can swiftly knock their dxxxs in the dirt ... well you know what I mean...
Aggression for commerce is wrong... Aggression is wrong 99% of the time... Defense is the ONLY reason to use the military...
History is about pointing fingers... One thing happened because this other thing happened... and those who don't know history are bound to repeat it...
That is why we study safety precautions in electronics... so we don't do something stupid that has already been done... same with politics and history...
kc7jty
05-11-2004, 07:34 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ May 11 2004,11:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ May 11 2004,11:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One thing everyone is forgetting is that Bush did consult the congress and the decision to move was supported by them at the time.
Right or wrong -- the decision has been made. #Question is what is the next step.
No offense intended, pointing fingers just won't fix the problem.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
WE are NOT forgetting he LIED to the congress to get them to go along with his Neocon scheme.........(etc)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Spoken like a true American patriot Harry......too bad you are in the minority these days.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #The Skunk
P.S. In a way I hope GWB is reelected. These dumb *ss Americans deserve that SOB.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc7jty @ May 11 2004,13:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">P.S. In a way I hope GWB is reelected. These dumb *ss Americans deserve that SOB.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Maybe, but the rest of the world DOESN'T!
Someone on one of these threads said the would vote for a poka dotted armidillo [I think that what it was] if it would run against Bush...
My only question is: "What is the Armidillo's name so I can write it in?"
kc7jty
05-12-2004, 02:58 AM
PU: Jolly good response and enjoyable belly roll. Thanks...I needed it.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc7jty @ May 11 2004,20:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PU: #Jolly good response and enjoyable belly roll. Thanks...I needed it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thanks... There just seems to be less and less to laugh about these days...
kc7jty
05-12-2004, 03:39 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ May 11 2004,20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc7jty @ May 11 2004,20:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PU: #Jolly good response and enjoyable belly roll. Thanks...I needed it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thanks... There just seems to be less and less to laugh about these days...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Now I get to say....AMEN
What other options are available.
Heck -- Edwards seemed like he was the only one that was running who had any sense that also would have a chance against Bush.
Who will be running, John (Fonda) Kerry
kc7jty
05-13-2004, 08:16 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ May 12 2004,06:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What other options are available.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Either none of the above or a REVOLUTION. I think that if just 15 to 20% (of those currently holding a job) were to strike we could force the gvt. to give us our country back again. (BTW Gas is $2.09/gal here for regular now).
The cartoon shows a statue (remember Saddam's statue) of GWB that had been toppled which caused the head to break off. From the head comes the continuous (broken) recorded message over and over...... "Stay the course" #"Stay the course" #"We must free the Iraqi people"......"Stay the course" #"Stay the course" #"We must, etc, etc.................
w5klb
05-14-2004, 12:07 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ May 12 2004,06:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What other options are available.
Heck -- Edwards seemed like he was the only one that was running who had any sense that also would have a chance against Bush.
Who will be running, John (Fonda) Kerry[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What would even be more interesting is to see who will be his running mate.
Could a Kerry-Edwards ticket be in the works? Hmmm...
k4uug
05-14-2004, 02:46 PM
BOSTON GLOBE - April 23, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Vietnam combat records posted on John F. Kerry's campaign website for the month of January 1969 as evidence of his service aboard swift boat No. 94 describe action that occurred before Kerry was skipper of that craft, according to the officer who said he commanded the boat at the time.
For example, in a summary of action that occurred Jan. 26, 1969, the campaign says Kerry served on boat No. 94 alongside another boat, No. 66. "PCFs 94 and 66 escorted troops up the Ong Doc River early in the morning when they were ambushed by gun and rocket fire from approximately 40 men on both sides of the river," the campaign summary says. "Two B-40 rounds hit close to Kerry's boat, while PCF 66 received 2 B-40 rocket hits. Three men on PCF66 were wounded.
A junk containing South Vietnamese troops was also sunk, killing 11 South Vietnamese troops. Intelligence reports after the mission indicated that the Viet Cong troops may have planned the ambush in advance."
Peck said he was the skipper of the 94 at this time and that Kerry was not on the craft.
In another report, the campaign summarizes action that took place on Jan. 29, 1969, this way: "While Kerry's boat and another [PCF72] were probing a canal along the river, Kerry's boat came under heavy fire and was hit by a B-40 rocket in the cabin area. One member of Kerry's crew -- Forward Gunner David Alston -- suffered shrapnel wounds in his head. His injuries were not considered serious and he was sent to the 29th Evac Hospital at Binh Thuy."
Peck said he was the skipper on this day as well. Peck was also injured in the ambush and was hospitalized.
Kerry's BULL#### Heroics time Line
Dec. 2, 1968. Kerry reports He was slightly wounded on his arm,Get's first Purple Heart?
Feb. 20, 1969.Kerry reports a minor shrapnel wound in his left thigh.Gets second Purple Heart?
March 13, 1969, Kerry reports a mine detonated near 's his boat,Slightly wounded him on the arm again? Kerry get third purple heart.
March 17, 1969,After his third Purple Heart Kerry requested to be sent home. Navy rules, Kerry pointed out, allowed a thrice-wounded soldier to return to the United States immediately.
April 1969, Kerry having engineered an early transfer out of the conflict because of his three minor wounds, John Kerry left his crew behind and returned home to a sweet assignment as an aide to Rear Admiral Walter F. Schlech, Jr.
When later asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it.
Let's see the medical records for treatment of those so-called wound's made public?
The following criteria governs award of the Purple Heart in ALL branches of service, not just the United States Army. The text here is taken directly from AR 600-8-22, 25 February 1995 and Public Law 104-106 - Feb. 10, 1996. see link.
http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm
(2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.
Kerry faces questions over Purple Heart
By Michael Kranish, Boston Globe Staff, 4/14/2004
WASHINGTON --
As the presidential campaign heats up, some Vietnam veterans are using the Internet and talk radio to question the Democratic candidate's military record.
They complain that Kerry's three Purple Hearts were for minor wounds and that he left Vietnam more than eight months ahead of schedule under regulations permitting thrice-wounded soldiers to depart early.
But the examination also found that Kerry's commanding officer at the time questioned Kerry's first Purple Heart, which he earned for a wound received just two weeks after arriving in Vietnam.
"
He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," recalled Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. "People in the office were saying, `I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm." Hibbard said he couldn't be certain whether Kerry actually came under fire on Dec. 2, 1968, the date in question and that is why he said he asked Kerry questions about the matter.
But Kerry persisted and, to his own "chagrin," Hibbard said, he dropped the matter. "I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it," Hibbard said. "I finally said, `OK, if that's what happened . . . do whatever you want.' After that, I don't know what happened. Obviously, he got it, I don't know how."
Kerry Movie (http://www.kerrycore.com/ad_betrayal.htm)
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/picturejokes/16574.jpg
k4uug
05-14-2004, 02:51 PM
Sent to me by a brown water navy Nam Vet!
I've long thought that John Kerry's war record was phoney. We talked about it when you were here. It's mainly been instinct because, as you know, nobody who claims to have seen the action he does would so shamelessly flaunt it for political gain. So I spent a couple of hours on the internet yesterday, made a bunch of notes, and I'm sending them as an attachment. In addition, look at the website http://25thaviation.org/
Somebody went to a lot of trouble to chronicle Kerry's checkered career.
I was in the Delta shortly after he left. I know that area well. I know the operations he was involved in well. I know the tactics and the doctrine used. I know the equipment. Although I was attached to CTF-116 (PBRs) I spent a fair amount of time with CTF-115 (swift boats), Kerry's command.
Here are my problems and suspicions:
(1) Kerry was in-country less than four months and collected, a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three purple hearts. I never heard of anybody with any outfit I worked with (including SEAL One, the Sea Wolves, Riverines and the River Patrol Force) collecting that much hardware so fast, and for such pedestrian actions. The Swifts did a commendable job. But that duty wasn't the worst you could draw. They operated only along the coast and in the major rivers (Bassac and Mekong). The rough stuff in the hot areas was mainly handled by the smaller, faster PBRs.
(2) Three Purple Hearts but no limp. All injuries so minor that no time lost from duty. Amazing luck. Or he was putting himself in for medals every time he bumped his head on the wheel house hatch? Combat on the boats was almost always at close range. You didn't have minor wounds. At least not often. Not three times in a row. Then he used the three purple hearts to request a trip home eight months before the end of his tour. Fishy.
(3) The details of t! he event for which he was given the Silver Star make no sense at all. Supposedly, a B-40 was fired at the boat and missed. Charlie jumps up with the launcher in his hand, the bow gunner knocks him down with the twin .50, Kerry beaches the boat, jumps off, shoots Charlie, and retreives the launcher. If true, he did everything wrong.
(a) Standard procedure when you took rocket fire was to put your stern to the action and go balls to the wall. A B-40 has the ballistic integrity of a frisbie after about 25 yards, so you put 50 yards or so between you and the beach and begin raking it with your .50's.
(b) Did you ever see anybody get knocked down with a .50 caliber round and get up? The guy was dead or dying. The rocket launcher w! as empty. There was no reason to go after him (except if you knew he was no danger to you just flopping around in the dust during his last few seconds on earth, and you wanted some derring do in your after-action report). And we didn't shoot wounded people. We had rules against that, too.
© Kerry got off the boat. This was a major breach of standing procedures. Nobody on a boat crew ever got off a boat in a hot area. EVER! The reason was simple. If you had somebody on the beach your boat was defenseless. It coudn't run and it couldn' t return fire. It was stupid and it put his crew in danger. He should have been relieved and reprimanded. I never heard of any boat crewman ever leaving a boat during or after a firefight.
Something is fishy.
Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court martial for carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple people killed by running across the bow of a Jap destroyer) who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months early, requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress, finds out war heros don't sell well in Massachsetts in 1970 so reinvents himself as Jane Fonda, throws his ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his political career, gets Stillborn Pell to invite him to address Congress and Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting, winds up in the Senate himself a few years later, votes against every major defense bill, says the CIA is irrelevant after the Wall came down, votes against the Gulf War, a big mistake since that turned out well, decides not to make the same mistake twice so votes for invading Iraq, but oops, that didn't turn out so well so he now says he really didn't mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow him to go to war.
I'm real glad you or I never had this guy covering out flanks in Vietnam. I sure don't want him as Commander in Chief. I hope that somebody from CTF-115 shows up with some facts challenging Kerry's Vietnam record. I know in my gut it's wildy inflated. And fishy.
Keep smiling,
Kerry's BULL#### Heroics time Line
Dec. 2, 1968. Kerry reports He was slightly wounded on his arm,Get's first Purple Heart?
Feb. 20, 1969.Kerry reports a minor shrapnel wound in his left thigh.Gets second Purple Heart?
March 13, 1969, Kerry reports a mine detonated near 's his boat,Slightly wounded him on the arm again? Kerry get third purple heart.
March 17, 1969,After his third Purple Heart Kerry requested to be sent home. Navy rules, Kerry pointed out, allowed a thrice-wounded soldier to return to the United States immediately.
April 1969, Kerry having engineered an early transfer out of the conflict because of his three minor wounds, John Kerry left his crew behind and returned home to a sweet assignment as an aide to Rear Admiral Walter F. Schlech, Jr.
When later asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it.
Let's see the medical records for treatment of those so-called wound's?
The following criteria governs award of the Purple Heart in ALL branches of service, not just the United States Army. The text here is taken directly from AR 600-8-22, 25 February 1995 and Public Law 104-106 - Feb. 10, 1996
Purple Heart criteria (http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm)
2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.
Stop Hanoi John Kerry (http://www.stopjohn.com/pages/movies/hanoi-john.htm)
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/picturejokes/16574.jpg
k4uug
05-14-2004, 02:58 PM
Vietnam Vet Explains His Thoughts on John Kerry
The message below was written by Don Bendell, a Vietnam veteran who served as an officer in four Special Forces Groups, is a best-selling author with over 1,500,000 books in print, a 1995 inductee into the International Karate Hall of Fame, and owner of karate schools in southern Colorado.
Today's Political Food for Thought My wife had rotator cuff surgery earlier this year, and the recovery is terribly painful. Then, she developed a staph infection, and they had to cut the same scar open and operate on her again. Just thinking about the pain and anxiety of facing that painful surgery a second time in the same wound, makes me cringe.
That experience, however pales in comparison to what I am going through right now, in my heart.
The old hurts are surfacing and the feelings of betrayal by fellow citizens, and their leader stirring them up, are breaking my heart again. I am being cut in the same scar. How did we who served in Vietnam suddenly become cold-blooded killers, torturers, and rapists, of the ilk of the Nazi SS or the Taliban? Most of us were American soldiers who grew up idolizing John Wayne, Roy Rogers, and all the other heroes.
That was why I volunteered. But for political expediency, John Kerry has rewritten history, again. After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, John Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents he supposedly witnessed or heard about from other vets: "They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
I was a Green Beret officer who volunteered for duty in Vietnam and fought in the thick of it in 1968 and 1969 on a Special Forces A-team on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, just for starters. We were the elite. We saw the most action. Everybody in the world knows that. But we did not just kill people, we built a church, a school, treated illnesses, passed out soap, food, and clothing, and had fun and loving interaction with the indigenous people of Vietnam, just like our boys did in Normandy, Baghdad, Saigon, and everywhere American soldiers ever served. We all gave away our candy bars and rations to kids. Our hearts to oppressed people all over the globe.
My children and grandchildren could read your words, and think those horrendous things about me, Mr. Kerry. You are a bold-faced, unprincipled liar, and a disgrace, and you have dishonored me and all my fellow Vietnam veterans. Sure, there were a couple bad-apples, but I saw none, and I saw it all, and if I did, as an army officer, it was my obligation to stop it, or at the very least report it. Why is there not a single record anywhere of you ever reporting any incidents like this or having the perpetrators arrested? The answer is simple. You are a liar. Your medals and mine are not a free pass for lifetime, Senator Kerry, to bypass character, integrity, and morality. I earn my Green Beret over and over daily in all aspects of my life.
Eight National Guard Green Berets, and other National Guard soldiers, have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you totally dishonored their widows and families by lumping National Guard service in with being a draft-dodger, conscientious objector, and deserter, just so you can try to sabotage the patriotism of our President who proudly served as an Air National Guard jet pilot. I have a son earning his Green Beret at Fort Bragg right now, and his wife serves honorably in the Air National Guard, just like President Bush did, and I am as proud of her as I am my son. I volunteered for Vietnam and have no problem whatsoever with President Bush being our Commander-In-Chief. In fact, I am proud of him as our leader.
John Kerry, you personally derailed the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, HR2883, in 2001, after it had passed the House by a 411 to 1 vote, and thousands of pro-American Montagnard tribespeople in Vietnam died since then who could have been saved, by you. Earlier, as Chair of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs, you personally quashed the efforts of any and all veterans to report sightings of living POW's, when you held those reins in Congress. You have fought tooth and nail to push for the US to normalize relations with Vietnam for years. Why, Mr. Kerry?
Simple, your first cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO, of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi, worth BILLIONS of dollars for Collier's International to become the exclusive real estate representative for the country of Vietnam.
"Hanoi John," now that it works for you, you beat your chest about your Vietnam service, but to me, you are a phony, opportunistic, hypocrite.
You are one of those politicians that is like a fertilizer machine: all that comes out of you is horse manure, and you are spreading it everywhere. Medals do not make a man. Morals do.
Don Bendell Canon City, Colorado
Kerry's American Betrayal
This man has the nerve to say he supports our troops?
<a href="http://www.stopjohn.com/pages....y's</a> WINTER SOLDIER (http://www.stopjohn.com/pages/movies/winter-soldier.htm" target="_blank">Kerry's)
1971 What does John Kerry really think about American Soldiers? Let him tell you in his own words.
Hanoi John (http://www.stopjohn.com/pages/movies/hanoi-john.htm)
KB9YCO
05-14-2004, 03:57 PM
Wow, vulgarity and questioning of someone who was actually there and served this country. Not very American or Christian of ya brother. I personally think this election is as bad as the last one, they're both idiots.
Enough with the stupid pictures already too; are you going to post those in every thread you reply in? eeesh
YCo.. by the very fact that you commented as you did about the guys post which N1OBN provided shows me something.
It shows me you have very little true knowledge of what ACTUALLY happened in Viet Nam and most assuredely don't recognize the 'ring of truth' that is heard all throughout the guys report that the media reported.
One good (perhaps bad) thing about having been exposed to that rather unpleasant part of the USA's past is that I was exposed to, and spent a LOT of tiem with folks who 'been there, done that, and got that hard knowledge'.
I learned pretty quickly to discern the 'bar war hero's' who had lots of stories but not one shred of truth from the guys who HAD been there and done that.
The guy's stories who the papers reported ARE quite full of the 'ring of truth'.
The rules of engangement.. the requirements for fighting battles with those boats in (large canals) rivers is quite accurate. The recount of what weapons would/could do is true and his recounting has all the earmarks of a man who not nly KNOWS what he talks about but was there, besides.
So, please.. HIS recounts and recoolection of what was.. is far far and away more valuable for judging the FlipFlop's assertions as to his Purple Heart history.
I make not the claims he did, I have my own.. but they are more attuned to PG1 than Vietnam (eventhough I was highly familiar with VN and things surrounding that small bit of war)
REMEMBER NICK BERG!
K3FT
W3MIV
05-15-2004, 12:51 AM
N1OBN:
Thanks. Good posts. These folks need to know the truth.
k4uug
05-20-2004, 04:14 AM
THE WORST BILL CLINTON BY A LANDSIDE AND A STAIN ON A DRESS! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/12896.gif
W8EFA
05-20-2004, 04:37 AM
I really don't understand how you guys can pick on Kerry's war record. #If you are picking on Kerry that means you must support Bush. #How asinine is that to compare military records when your candidate got his daddy to get him out of the Vietnam War.
Maybe Kerry really only deserved 2 purple hearts not three. #Maybe he only deserved one medal not two. #However he did go and was wounded in combat. #That sure is a lot more than you can say about President Bush!
BTW - #Please OBN, like YCO said please spare us the stupid pictures.