Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

DU - Health Risk?

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by Grieg, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. Jens Knudsen

    Jens Knudsen New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    Law of armed conflict from the canadian armed forces website:
    http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/training/pu ... _man_e.asp
    I could not find anything about chemical plants, it only stat that factories and plants that is critical for the survival of the civilian population (water supply, food crop etc) are illigal to attack (look chapter 4)
     
  2. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Interesting but not relevant to US forces. That link is for the Canadian Law regarding the conduct of Canadian Forces. It has nothing to do with the US military.

    The UN commission that investigated the NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia as well as other issues like the use of DU in the former Yugoslavia found no evidence of violations under applicable international law.

    see this link:

    http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm


    Bottom line findings by UN commission:

    The losers always whine and complain :wink:
     
  3. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    [Edited by Moderator]
     
  4. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I guess it was only a matter of time until you totally lost it sinissa. That time has apparently arrived.
     
  5. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The international laws concerning environment that NATO have breached:

    - Geneva Convention brought in 1949 explicitly says: "Use of methods and military means which aim is, or might cause wide, long term and serious damage to environment are forbidden." The same convention envisage protection of civilians and civilian facilities which are not to be victims of "international military conflicts".

    - Stockholm Declaration on Environment enacted in 1972

    - Convention of 1977, Article 1. The convention states that none of the countries can use against another one military or other measures which might have essential effects on environment or cause change in its condition.

    Then,National TV was legitim target (28 reportes and crewman dead)
    U arogant....
     
  6. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    If you had read the link I posted you would be aware that the terms like "long term and serious damage to the environment" are discussed in the UN commission report and dismissed in the case of the NATO bombing of the former yugoslavia.

    BTW Sinissa. It is regrettable that any innocent people die in war. That little girl wasn't deliberately targeted. Her death was an accident. Why don't you post some photos of the innocent civilians deliberately murdered by the Serbs. Don't their murders concern you despite the fact that their ethnicity is different than yours?
     
  7. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Do u want me to post alot pic deliberately killed civilians by US soldiers all ower world? In Ex Yu,on 5-6Y of war,totaly casulties civilian and Military was estimated in range 250-300k,on all sides.How much US killed in vietnam? Any US official was judged from command responsibility for crimes?Any US soldier was seriusly convicted ( i dont count slap on the hand things)? How much totaly civilians US killed do u know? How much died in Iraq indirectly by US actings? And who is animal here? Omg,u r such a hipocrat and blind man!

    I really hope that war will come to ur house door to se how it look....
    Do u know what is war? It is not video game,and it is not live CNN,craps.
     
  8. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I notice that you didn't answer the question regarding ethnicity I posed nor comment on the deliberate murder of civilians by Serbs. There have been a few US servicemen tried and convicted for deliberately killing civilians. The numbers are small because it so rarely happens. You try and lump together those deliberately murdered with the inevitable collateral damage to civilians that happens in every war. There is a big difference. One is a regrettable but inevitable part of war and the other is a war crime, which is a term that all Serbs should be quite familar with.

    BTW there is nothing more pathetic in my mind than people who sit at their computer and threaten other people on the internet.
    Get a life.
     
  9. Jens Knudsen

    Jens Knudsen New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    the law of armed conflict is an international set of rules when it come to war, all countries (well, at least most westen) follow them, if you read it (even thoug it come from the canadian armed forces website) its basicly things that have been agreed on by international treaties, so if the USA follow the international treaties, then this law of armed conflict also apply to the US army

    the rules that can be difference from country to country is the rules of engaments (ROE)
     
  10. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    First off all,im on work,so i post few things when i got spare minut.Second,Serbis did not kill 0.0001% of US civilian killings,and those who did,was put on triels,r charged for that.U say US soldiers kill civilians was so rearly? Go to the ground,u fly too high.I sow....dosens PIC from Vietnam where US soldiers kill Civilians and POW-s,in excecuting manner.Just try on google,it is full of it.And Iraq raping and killing that girl? How much percentage off crimes we see? Serbs was acused for ethcnic cleansning.How much Serbs left in croatia,in areas where they was majority?

    I dont treath u Grieg,i invite u to come in Serbia.Is it that threath for u?
     
  11. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    edit...deleted double post
     
  12. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    ]
    If you are attempting to state that the US has violated an international treaty then you must cite the relevant treaty not a Canadian document.
    For example cite the Hague Convention of 1907 and the relevant article.

    This general overview of LOAC as applied by the US military might be helpful:

    http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm

    If you read the UN commission report I cited earlier you will see that no evidence of violation of international law was found in regard to the bombing of targets in the former Yugoslavia. If the UN commisiion couldn't find a violation and you think that you have found one please cite the reports of the incident and the relevant section of treaty.
     
  13. Cdat88

    Cdat88 recruit

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Sinnisa, you need to step back a bit. Some of us have seen war, know it's effects, and have seen the results. I will remind you the US, NATO and UN involvement in the former Yugoslavia area is due to pigheaded fools who slaughter out of hand those who are not like them.
    This is same reason we get involved in Africa, in Europe in the 30's and 40's with our fine allies, and even now around the world. Address the suffering brought on by genocide at the hands of animals in the area you are in. What of that? I feel for every innocent lost to conflict, but there would not be a war if monsters did not go after people who committed no crime but to be born a little different. You worry about a crack in the wall while the whole building collapses around you. I apologize for going off about this but enough is enough. Good people that try to help in the only way possible are slapped in the face for it. It sickens me. Too many of my friends and family have bled for others to sit and listen to such tripe.
     
  14. Jens Knudsen

    Jens Knudsen New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    where did I state anything? I provide with the law of armed conflict and nothing more, Grieg you are a little to much in the offensive now

    I posted the law of conflict from the canadian armed forces website because it was the only good one in english I could find, but its basicly the same in the rest of the westen world (I learnd about the law of armed conflict when I was in the danish army)
    I said that I could NOT find anything about where its legal or not to attack chemicals plants and factories in it

    so I did not state anything, so please stop accusing me for something I did not do, its an attitude like that, that will give you more enemies
     
  15. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    What enemies are you referring to? I don't worry about it. If a poster becomes abusive to me it is his problem, not mine. Perhaps you should speak to him about it, not me.
    Back on topic. The discussion, which you surely read, referred to NATO bombing (specifically US bombing) of targets in the former Yugoslavia and whether or not they constitituted war crimes.
    I posted a link to the UN commission which looked into those claims and found them baseless.
    You posted a link to a Canadian site which may or may not represent a different view on the issue and that is what I was responding to. Your post immediately followed my question "forbidden by what authority".
     
  16. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    Yea, right
     
  17. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Exactly. Glad you agree. The US military screens it's recruits and trains them well. Considering the extraordinary circumstances of combat with extreme stress and confusion there are very few instances of US soldiers intentionally harming civilian noncombatants.
     
  18. Jens Knudsen

    Jens Knudsen New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    You have still not shown me where I stated anything about that the USA have violated a international treaty (the simple answer is I did not state anything like that) I found the law of armed conflict as a respons on that it was claim that its illigal to bomb chemicals plants, and as I said I cant find anything in the law of armed conflict that say its illigal or not

    I find your attitude hostile towards me, the moment I posted something you asumed that I was against the US, but I did not post anything like that when I provide the law of armed conflict, but maybe thats the attitude that you provide towards none-US posters in here when it come to a subject that involve the USA army?

    Dont you think that the claims against NATO also involve other countries (like Denmark, Canada, England, Germany, France etc)?
    everytime somebody accuse NATO for something, they do not only accuse USA, they accuse all the members of NATO

    The law of armed conflict is an international law, it also goes under the name: International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

    I posted it as answer on your question, but I did NOT state that it was forbidde, I said it does not say anything about it, so does it mean that I say its forbidde or does it mean that I say that the IHL dont say its forbidde? (I would say it mean the last)
    so why all your fuzz when I basicly agree with you in this?
    I provide a prove for your own statment and you turned it down
    Here is another prove:
    http://www.ihl-ideas.org/index.jsp
     
  19. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Sinassa was accusing the US specifically of war crimes, not NATO.
    I asked by what authority was it forbidden.
    There is some nationalistic bias being displayed on these forums and lots of anti US rhetoric. Don't pretend that you don't see it and then accuse me of overreacting.
    ps keep in mind that I have not called anyone names nor been warned or banned for making abusive posts such as some others who have attacked and insulted me on these forums. I stand by my point of view vigorously but I also play by the rules and don't abuse those who disagree with me.

    pss I'm not sure why you are picking up and carrying the torch for others if you aren't involved in accusing the US of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. There are two posters on these forums who do that already at every opportunity. Neither one has ever made a post in which the US was mentioned without stating a derogatory opinion.
     
  20. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    And how many of them were killed by NATO forces?
    The tiniest of percentages sinissa; NATO killed perhaps 2000 military and civilians... Most of those deaths you cite were caused by Serbs Croats and Bosniaks killing each other, and by that damnned Slobodan...

    Unlike the US, Milosevic clearly violated the fundamental article of the Geneva convention, Article 3... Not these piss-weak accusation of DU being a forbidden weapon, The Geneva Convention addresses much more pressing issue of human rights than that :roll: Surely you agree that Ethnic Genocide is a much higher priority than what the US makes its bullets out of...

    Even if you could prove that using DU is a violation of the GC, it would take a very VERY good case... Nowehere does the GC or any other legal document which the US is bound byexplicitly foribid its use... Linking it to nuclear or biological weaponry is a matter of intepretation, and a long shot... Genocide however, is a crime, and the US has not comitted that... Slobodan did, and by doing so, he brought the NATO into the country... He can be held responsible for the deaths caused by NATO because, but for his actions and violation of the GC, NATO would not have intervened

    Here is the Geneva convention...
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... neva1.html

    Please show me which law(s) have been violated by America
     

Share This Page