h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Where is the use of depleted uranium defined as a war crime?

That depends on what you mean by "sex".

Oh, er, this isn't about Ms Lewinsky, is it? I never had sex with that woman, d'you hear me? I meant: that depends on what you mean by a "war crime".

Either go with the spirit of the meaning (of "war crime"), which is clear and known to all, or spend the next year discussing what is and isn't a war crime.... I'd go with the former, myself.

I think that scattering a substance that causes significant numbers of cancers all over someone's homeland is probably a war crime, don't you?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I've had a quick search and hope the following links may help:

http://www.sundayherald.com/32522
http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/

However, links to other pages don't always work so I couldn't find a solid answer. I can accept a certain amount of 'page not found' stuff but this is a bit ridiculous and my mind starts drifting into conspiracy theory territory.

But this is hardly surprising when a former cabinet member writes such articles, which claim that the war on Iraq was 'bogus' to begin with:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1036571,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1036525,00.html

As a former cabinet minister you'd think he'd have an insight as to what the truth actually is. He also sites a number of references which can be corroborated. Personally, I doubt if he is doing this just to stir things up for his own gain. These are serious allegations and cannot be taken lightly.

These links may not answer your question, Blatherskite, but they, particularly the latter ones, do add in favour of the subject of this debate.

Hmmm, yes I think the first Meacher story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1036571,00.html) rings true. It is interesting to contrast it with the way it has been reported.

For example Meacher asks why fighters weren't sent to intercept the hijacked planes, as is standard practise. A perfectly reasonable question, which ought to have a perfectly reasonable answer. This has been reported as: Meacher accuses US government of complicity in 9/11 attacks.

I remember seeing on the web somewhere a claim that the attack on the pentagon was a truck bomb not an aircraft, and one aircraft was unaccounted for. Could be a crazy, but it would be nice to have evidence of the official position. I think the argument was based on the pattern of damage to the building and type of debris. An alternative explanation might be that the plane was shot down on approach by defence systems in the Pentagon building - it is most likely that such systems exist, but that they are kept secret.

Anyway that is a digression. The Meacher reference has brought us back on topic. Well done!

I remember the report being that one plane had struck the pentagon and a truck bomb had exploided in fron tof the State Department. There was a lot of misinformation that day. And there still is.

I have to agree with what you say with the Meacher reference being a matter of how this is reported rather than what the facts actually are. Unfortunately, people, including politicians, are very emotionally people which is part of the reason that this was reported in such a way. It could also be argued that distancing oneself from the facts dilutes the emotive reasons for the actions as well. As a previous article posted on this thread has shown that the US has been involved with terrorism, Meacher's comments concerning US complicity in the destruction of two years ago are highly interesting and possibly cannot be dismissed too lightly.

I heard the first reports at 1.30pm GMT. They definitely said it was a plane hitting the Pentagon.

There were numerous eyewitnesses who saw the plane flying low over Washington then heard the explosion.

The footage of the explosion at the Pentagon looks like an airline fuel explosion (ie identical to the WTC explosions) not a bomb.

I'm sure there is also video footage of the plane either plummeting toward Washington or hitting the Pentagon.

It doesn't make sense for the US govt to blow up their military HQ, nor pretend a truckbomb was an airline for no reason.

Currently, the only evidence to qualify the "truckbomb" theory is something someone wrote in a book in France, based on no real proof.

Not much contest, really.

Regarding Meacher, he did not simply ask why the fighters weren't scrambled. He *did* accuse the US govt of doing nothing, and then used the non-scrambled fighters as evidence. That's why the headlines ran "Meacher accuses..." that's exactly what he did.

This debate is a worthy one, and is bringing to light some interesting points. However the main point remains obscure (IMO): if you attack other people in their home countries - setting aside whether or not there is (or could be) a Good Reason for this - you might expect them, or their 'representatives' to attack you in yours.

Deaths directly and indirectly due to American foreign policy since (arbitrary time limit) WW2 figure in the millions. As they say across the Pond: go figure!

Note that I neither condemn nor support hurting others; I simply note that people who are attacked tend to counter-attack.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"Note that I neither condemn nor support hurting others; I simply note that people who are attacked tend to counter-attack."

The Islamic fundamentalists declared war on the US not because it attacked them first (it helped them in the 1980s, lest we forget) but because it stationed forces on their "holy land". The nations that have been attacked by the US over the last 50 years were not who attacked on 11/9.

Go figure.

Yes, I think we can get carried away with the US history of sponsoring terrorism, and say that Al-Quaeda were retaliating. But that would attributing a sentiment of international solidarity to Al-Quaeda, and I don't buy that. Wasn't it all provoked by US forces eating bacon on Saudi soil? Or is that a myth?

So a bunch of mostly Saudi citizens fly some planes into big buildings in the US, so the US invades Afghanistan and Iraq. Go figure.

Bush family links with the Bin Ladens anyone?

Of course US action in the Middle east that has provoked Islamic Fundamentalist anger goes back further than 10 years and US troops occuping holy land.

Students of the History of the region will know all about the Iranian revolution and the part the US played... but most crucially (that Arab bug bear) the unfetted support for Isreal.

"Of course US action in the Middle east that has provoked Islamic Fundamentalist anger goes back further than 10 years and US troops occuping holy land."

Students of the History of the region will know all about the Iranian revolution and the part the US played..."

The US played no real actual part in the revolution. It caused it by supporting the Shah. bin Laden and al-Quaida are nothing to do with the Iranian revolution, or pre-1991 US policy. Their objection is the US presence in Saudi Arabia and US backing of the Saudi Monarchy. The only arab nation the US has attacked is Iraq and Iraq was no friend of bin Laden or al Quaida (so the anti-war people kept reminding me, anyway).

"but most crucially (that Arab bug bear) the unfetted support for Isreal."

It's not unfetted. Both Clinton and Bush support the formation of a Palestianian State (without terrorism) which is a kick in the teeth for Zionism. The US has traditionally supported Israel, but recent policy indicates they do not support Zionism (ie Israeli expansion) or the occupation of the West Bank.

Oh come on Zagreb, whilst the talk is of "Road Maps" and a "Palestinian State" the reality of the situation is that every American administration for generations has offered a Carte Blanche to Israel. I study Middle Eastern politics at Uni and that is the only way I can personally read US policy toward Israel.

to say the u.s, does not support the expansion of israel is ludicrous...virtually all israels weapons (including the nuclear bomb) have come from the u.s. american tanks and planes are used on a daily basis to kill innocent civilians

Yes: Israel was *created* by the USA (along with Britain, under the auspices of the UN), against the extreme opposition of the people/states who were living in and around the area at the time. Israel has since been armed, protected and supported by Britain and the USA against all complainants. UN resolutions have been vetoed or ignored; Israel is in violation of many more UN resolutions than Saddam was, n'est ce pas?

When Rachel Corrie - an American citizen - was murdered by Israel, the USA failed to act. Now if Saddam or Gadhafi had deliberately driven a bulldozer - ugh! - over an American citizen...

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

it was during the russian afghani conflict that the muja hadin were trained an armed by the u. s. now that america wants the transsiberian pipeline they are fighting against people who know the game as malcolmx said "it's a case of the chickens coming home to roost"

it was during the russian afghani conflict that the muja hadin were trained an armed by the u. s. now that america wants the transsiberian pipeline they are fighting against people who know the game as malcolmx said "it's a case of the chickens coming home to roost"

yes another legacy of the cold war being fought be "proxy" methods.

that's what selling stingers get's ye

"Either go with the spirit of the meaning (of "war crime"), which is clear and known to all, or spend the next year discussing what is and isn't a war crime.... I'd go with the former, myself."

Well, then, let's just go crazy with the spirit of the meaning. Everyone who ever kills anyone in war is guilty of a war crime, by your thinking, so let's line up all the WWII vets against the wall and punish them for killing those sweet, innocent Nazis.

This is why we define what is and is not a war crime. Until the use of depleted uranium is defined as a war crime, it should not be considered one. There is no intent to cause cancer... they just need something to puncture armor.

To call it a crime is like punishing 1970's architects for using asbestos. They didn't know it caused lung problems... they just knew it made a really good insulator.

"Oh come on Zagreb, whilst the talk is of "Road Maps" and a "Palestinian State" the reality of the situation is that every American administration for generations has offered a Carte Blanche to Israel. I study Middle Eastern politics at Uni and that is the only way I can personally read US policy toward Israel."

I've taken a keen interest in World Politics for years and I know that US (and indeed Western) interests in the Middle East rely on peace and no conflicts or anyone likely to cause them. There is no way they are going to give Israel "carte blanche" to do what it likes if it upsets the balance of peace in the Middle East. They've been extremely tolerant for the last 10 or so years (they gave Israel a lot of leeway in the 70s and 80s, largely because most of the states against it were Soviet backed - this scenario no longer exists) but the US has become notably tougher in the last couple of years. There is no way Sharon would have accepted the start of the dismantlement of the "settlements" in the West Bank or the goal of the formation of an independent Palestine without US pressure.