August 04, 2003
We Gotta Have Faith, Faith, Faith
Time and again, Tony Blair and George W. Bush respond to questions concerning the whereabouts of Iraq's WMD by claiming that they're confident the weapons will at some point turn up. Or at least (they're now arguing) that evidence of a weapons programme -- capable of producing, deploying, and delivering within 45-minutes an attack upon Washington and London -- will turn up.
Dubya seems now to have entered full-on backtrack mode, judging by last week's Press Conference: "And I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program."
Now, this would be the same man who in January bemoaned that, "One thing is for certain, he's not disarming." The same man who in March bemoaned that, "Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied." The same man who in December bemoaned that, "We have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring."
The "certainty", the "facts", the "every reasons" have turned into "strong belief". And, as has been the case from the outset, the evidence upon which thse "strong beliefs" are based is not forthcoming. Why do Bush and Blair "strongly believe" that Iraq posed a threat so emergent that we needed to destroy the country and its people, including with radioactive weapons (whose use has Iraqi doctors warning that "the consequences could be devastating")?
Unless we're just expected to assume that the "strong belief" was based on a "bureaucratic decision" that a war could best be "marketed" to a skeptical public by playing the WMD card, then where the fuck is the evidence upon which the "strong belief" (nee "certainty", "fact", "every reason") is based?
On September 24, 2002, Tony Blair claimed that Saddam's
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programme is not an historic leftover from 1998. The inspectors aren't needed to clean up the old remains. His WMD programme is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The WMD programme is not shut down. It is up and running.
He further "concluded"
that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes...
What evidence led him to these conclusions? Is there some reason that this very obvious question has never been posed either to Bush or to Blair?
Posted by Eddie Tews at August 4, 2003 01:07 PM
Comments
maybe, just maybe, if you could use your imagination, you might be able to fathom the concept of "classified information" you incredible dolt. Eddie, your ego is so huge that you cannot understand our government having access to information that they deemed unwise to share with the likes of YOU is a possibility. Heaven forbid any info should be witheld from the Superbrain Eddie Tews and his gigantic glasses. go jerkoff to some animal porn you piece of stupid dogshit.
again, please get from behind your keyboard and go attempt to do some real good. of course you're much too chicken shit to do this and prefer your comfortable life, so in that case, please SHUT THE FUCK UP, LITTLE MAN! -- Posted by: Greg Taylor on August 4, 2003 03:44 PM
I'm just wondering how badly it chaps your ass, Eddie, that George Bush and Tony Blair were nominated for the Nobel Prize for Peace! LOL!! And you were trying to rally your "legions" of readers to have Mayor Anthony Williams of D.C. arrest George Bush, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell! LOL!! You're such a fucking shithead Eddie! I hope this keeps you up at night, throwing your little tantrums. hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!! -- Posted by: Greg Taylor on August 6, 2003 07:49 PM
Dear Eddie,
I will be surprised if you have the moral courage to read this entire post.
Fine post you put up, I see that you did just about no research into any facts regarding the official studies regarding using DU. Did you bother to check out the wealth of information which runs contrary to your stupid claims, including many studies done by the World Health Organization (WHO), or the results of ten YEARS of monitioring Gulf War vets who have PIECES of DU floating around INSIDE their bodies? Probably not. You just relied on such credible information sources as "Code Pink" and "Stop NATO." So here is a summary of some things you should look at before you ever open your mouth to speak again about DU:
-RAND, 1999. "(N)o evidence is documented in the literature of cancer or any other negative health effect related to the radiation received from exposure to natural uranium, whether inhaled or ingested, even at very high doses."
-Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in 1999 Toxicological Profile for Uranium. "No human cancer of any type has ever been seen as a result of exposure to natural or depleted uranium."
-United Kingdom Royal Society in May 2001. "Even if the estimates of risk are one hundred times too low, it is unlikely that any excess of fatal cancer would be detected within a group of 10,000 soldiers followed over 50 years."
-European Commission March, 2001 report. "Taking into account the pathways and realistic scenarios of human exposure, radiological exposure to depleted uranium could not cause a detectable effect on human health (e.g. cancer)."
-World Health Organization April, 2001 report. "The radiological hazard is likely to be very small. No increase of leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to uranium or DU."
-European Parliament April, 2001 report. "The fact that there is no evidence of an association between exposures – sometimes high and lasting since the beginning of the uranium industry – and health damages such as bone cancer, lymphatic or other forms of leukemia shows that these diseases as a consequence of an uranium exposure are either not present or very exceptional."
Missed these ones when doing your thourough research to provide a balanced, educated view on the subject now did you? Maybe it's all a government consipiracy! But since it's multiple countries, and U.N. NGOs as well, it must be a WORLD conspiracy! Every one is against you.
If nothing else at least check out http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/ir_pub/en/
Let's take a quick example of how stupid people like you are quick to point out human sickness occurances which seem to fit your political agenda without having any basis in scientific method of fact. The following is a quote from one of your anti-DU cohort websites, http://www.balkansyndrome.com/, which states on the FRONT PAGE:
"NATO has come under increasing pressure from several European governments over claims that depleted uranium used in NATO weapons had caused death or illness among Balkan peacekeepers, a condition dubbed 'Balkan Syndrome'."
That's funny, because the WHO report which went to the Balkans and STUDIED the effects of DU wrote in their report (http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluranium3.pdf): "The United National Environment Programme in their post-conflict environmental assessment of DU in Kosovo (UNEP, 2001) concluded that: · There was no detectable, widespread contamination of the ground surface by DU. The corresponding radiological and toxicological risks were considered insignificant or non-existent. · Detectable ground surface contamination was limited to areas within a few metres of penetrators or penetrator impact. · There was no significant risk related to these contamination points in terms of possible contamination of air, water or plants. The only risk would be through direct hand contact or the ingestion of contaminated soil. Based on reasonable assumptions on intake of soil the radiological risk would be insignificant while from a toxicological point of view the possible intake might exceed the health limit."
Basically, these "Balkan Syndrome" people (and you) are so convinced that they have all the facts that they never bothered to examine any evidence contrary to their position. Yeah, real stalwart defense you got going there, idiot. I can't even WAIT to see all the post-Iraqi Freedom junk science anti-DU "discoveries" that come out soon about all the DU we shot from our tanks is killing everyone, seeing as how we didn't even fire a single DU tank round the entire war. But don't let that get in the way of your already-decided upon "scientific" conclusions!
Here's another way to show your scientific thought process. Ever heard of that ass Takashi Morizumi, you know the great photographer and anti-nuclear activist who took all the heart-warming shots of the "victims" of DU use? You know what his advocates keep forgetting to include in his credentials? How about DOCTOR. How could he know the difference between a DU-inflicted birth defect and defects arising from Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons on his own people? Did he ask them? "Excuse me, but your son was deformed as a result of U.S. use of DU material in the war, right?" He didn't do that? Did he have a built-in Geiger counter in his camera? You idiots.
You seem quick to point out, based on scanty or completely fraudulent evidence, how bad DU is and how it is killing children. Did you bother to find out that 33 servicemembers in the Gulf War were in vehicles hit by "friendly fire" DU rounds and that DU shrapnel was imbedded in their bodies? If anyone should feel the harmful effects of DU, it would be these guys:
"The voluntary Veterans Affairs DU Medical Follow-up Program was begun in 1993-1994 with the medical evaluations of 33 friendly-fire DU-exposed veterans, many with embedded DU fragments. An additional 29 of the friendly-fire victims were later added to the surveillance program in 1999. In 1998, the program was enlarged to assess the wider Gulf War veteran community's exposure to DU through close contact with DU munitions, inhalation of smoke containing DU particulate during a fire at the Doha depot or while entering or salvaging vehicles or bunkers that were hit with DU projectiles. The published results of these medical evaluations conclude that the presence of retained DU fragments is the only scenario predictive of a high urine uranium value, and those with retained DU fragments continue to have elevated urine uranium levels nine years after the incident. It is unlikely that an individual would have an elevated urine uranium result, and consequently any uranium-related health effects, in the absence of retained DU fragments. Those individuals with normal urine uranium levels now are unlikely to develop any uranium-related toxicity in the future, regardless of what their DU exposure may have been in the Gulf War. Those DU-exposed friendly fire individuals with elevated levels of urinary uranium nine years after the Gulf War have not developed kidney abnormalities, leukemia, bone or lung cancer, or any classical uranium-related adverse outcome. The DU Medical Follow-up Program will continue to evaluate these individuals with elevated urine uranium levels to enable early detection of potential untoward health effects in the future due to their continued chronic exposure to DU."
Yet they are okay. Why didn't you factor this piece of data into your analysis of DU? That is why you didn't bother to include facts like these, or any of the others I have listed before you, in your stupid little blog, because like most junk science users, you just ignore facts that run contrary to your political position. Unless, of course, you think that American bodies are immune from DU hazards because we are built tougher than Iraqi or Balkan-area bodies and so these facts don't apply. I'll take that as a compliment, but you're full of shit.
Here's an idea. Instead of bitching about why we have DU and embarking on a campaign to make sure we get rid of it and thereby kill more of our servicemen by giving them shitty and less effective but more "politically correct" ammunition, why don't you actually help by dedicating a website to put the fear of God into anyone that would wish us harm so we never have to USE these "horrible" DU weapons. That would be more useful than running off half-informed bitching about their use. Or, help develop better ammunition and armor for our troops to use instead. But no, that would require you getting off your ass so instead you just bitch, because otherwise you'd actually have to do something besides type on a computer from the comfort of your own chair thinking, "Wow, that's really a great website I just put up, I've really helped out the suffering Iraqi people today." You asshole.
Eddie, I do not hate you personally, just the attitude exhibited by you and so, so many others when it comes to this subject. Wake up, wise up, or at the very least, shut up.
-- Posted by: STFU on August 9, 2003 11:49 AM
QED, I believe.
Damn Eddie, you just got your shit slam-dunked! LOL. so Eddie, here's your current conundrum: you're five feet tall on a good day, not good looking, you wear some enormous glasses and have no fashion sense whatsoever, you never get laid, you're a gigantic pussy (physically) AND YOU'RE STUPID, TOO! clearly, as the last poster just showed us. now being so physically undesirable might normally be bearable if you've got some brains to go with it, but in your case, it sounds like you were last in line for everything: looks, brains, common sense, you name it!
what a shitty existence it must be, being Eddie Tews. -- Posted by: Greg Taylor on August 10, 2003 04:01 PM
Who's laughing now? -- Posted by: bOBO THE cLOWN on October 20, 2004 06:20 PM