05-03-2006, 04:21 AM
This is the first ever post on DUBBS. So please bear with me if I play with the font and stuff. Just kidding. What I mean is, please bear with me if this BBS doesn't conform your standards or expectations. I'm new at this. I've never even been a moderator on another forum before, so I may be a bit 'out of it' on protocol. Anyway, I fully intend to write the 'Rules' from scratch in a few minutes. Sure, I could copy them from some other popular forum, but what the heck. You'll probably never read them anyway, right? Well, I hope you do, 'cause I'm gonna do my best writing them.
Why did I set up DUBBS? The answer to this question is pretty straightforward. I can't get no satisfaction -- on the depleted uranium issue that is. I've tried posting on the subject on other forums. No one responds. I send carefully and heartfully written emails on the subject to most of the people in my address book. I do this often. Nobody even forwards them. I doubt they read them. I upload documentaries and email the link. No one downloads them. (I have proof of that.) I even try to discuss depleted uranium at bars and parties. Nobody laughs... or knows what to think.
I also do a lot of Web research on DU, trying to figure out what to do about this bizarre bogeyman inside my head. Who do I believe? Apparently lots of people with PhD's are damn sure DU weapons are no worse than most other battlefield gizmos. And other PhD's, including ones formerly employed by the US Army to oversee DU related operations, insist that they are among the most despicable weapons ever created by the sick mind of man - essentially the equivalent of 'dirty bombs.'
All this contradictory information doesn't get me anywhere. Where am I supposed to turn? Even the NATO Website recommends the Web as the best source of DU info. Sheesh. People won't talk about it. The media, as a general rule, won't run stories on it. The 'scary' Web sites make me think we're on the highway to hell. The 'happy' Web sites make me think it's all a red herring.
I'm sorry. I can't go to bed like this. If half the stuff critics are saying about DU is true, our collective hearts are in for a world of hurt. Did Vietnam bruise the conscience of the Western world? Did Hiroshima? Did Nagasaki? (Please, someone tell me why America dropped two bombs instead of just one.) Well, if the fears turn out to be valid, this one should take the cake.
I don't like any military weapons. I'd like to believe we humans have the capacity to live in peace. But that's a naive attitude, worthy of ridicule, or so I am told by the pundits of the world, especially those inhabiting BBSes. But if we do indeed need to have to have weapons of war, why can't I at least live in a world where UN resolutions are thought to matter? ...a world where leaders tried to be more moral than their adversaries rather than simply win at any cost and preferably by overkill? ...a world where the words 'never again' had impact on people that matter? ...a world where it was okay to express concern for human suffering without being labeled a radical or communist?
I set up DUBBS because I think this particular issue cuts right through the veneer of rationality that is presented to us through the mass media. Is the world so Kafka-esque that the experts who 'know' that DU is safe are so tired of liberal bellyaching that they will not stoop to set them straight. (With respect to DU, they must number in the millions by now.) Just tell me, where is the debate? (!!!!!!)
DU, for me, is a perfect test case for humanity. Either this issue gets addressed (and hopefully resolved) in proper two-sided debate, or we are all doomed. The accusations against DU, and the militaries that use it, are too profound for words. If no one will take the stand to defend DU weapons, and I mean the dust, then I don't see any reason to expect civilization to survive more than another few decades. By taking the stand, I mean engaging the DU activists and critics in free and open debate. Saying DU is "only" 40% as radioactive as "normal" uranium doesn't amount to debate. Nor does pointing to a small number of studies showing lack of harm while ignoring other studies that do identify harm.
In short, there IS a debate. But as far as I can see, not much debate is going on -- not in the press, not in legislatures, military committees or even on the Internet. Even outspoken bloggers get few enough comments on the subject. All seems one-sided. It is creeping me out (oh, Lord).
As I couldn't find a single BBS devoted specifically to the DU debate, I thought I'd start one. I hope you'll join in. You can probably tell what side I lean towards right now, but let me assure you, this is one argument I'd love to lose. Please prove to me that Western armies are not indescriminately poisoning foreign landscapes out of sheer lust for military supremacy.
I remember reading a quote from a Greek philospher on a classroom poster many years ago. It said something to the effect of discussions or arguments yielding higher truths than can ever be reached by one person thinking alone. I Googled, but can't find the exact quote. But I did find this from Socrates, and it pretty much sums up my feelings of the moment:
Why did I set up DUBBS? The answer to this question is pretty straightforward. I can't get no satisfaction -- on the depleted uranium issue that is. I've tried posting on the subject on other forums. No one responds. I send carefully and heartfully written emails on the subject to most of the people in my address book. I do this often. Nobody even forwards them. I doubt they read them. I upload documentaries and email the link. No one downloads them. (I have proof of that.) I even try to discuss depleted uranium at bars and parties. Nobody laughs... or knows what to think.
I also do a lot of Web research on DU, trying to figure out what to do about this bizarre bogeyman inside my head. Who do I believe? Apparently lots of people with PhD's are damn sure DU weapons are no worse than most other battlefield gizmos. And other PhD's, including ones formerly employed by the US Army to oversee DU related operations, insist that they are among the most despicable weapons ever created by the sick mind of man - essentially the equivalent of 'dirty bombs.'
All this contradictory information doesn't get me anywhere. Where am I supposed to turn? Even the NATO Website recommends the Web as the best source of DU info. Sheesh. People won't talk about it. The media, as a general rule, won't run stories on it. The 'scary' Web sites make me think we're on the highway to hell. The 'happy' Web sites make me think it's all a red herring.
I'm sorry. I can't go to bed like this. If half the stuff critics are saying about DU is true, our collective hearts are in for a world of hurt. Did Vietnam bruise the conscience of the Western world? Did Hiroshima? Did Nagasaki? (Please, someone tell me why America dropped two bombs instead of just one.) Well, if the fears turn out to be valid, this one should take the cake.
I don't like any military weapons. I'd like to believe we humans have the capacity to live in peace. But that's a naive attitude, worthy of ridicule, or so I am told by the pundits of the world, especially those inhabiting BBSes. But if we do indeed need to have to have weapons of war, why can't I at least live in a world where UN resolutions are thought to matter? ...a world where leaders tried to be more moral than their adversaries rather than simply win at any cost and preferably by overkill? ...a world where the words 'never again' had impact on people that matter? ...a world where it was okay to express concern for human suffering without being labeled a radical or communist?
I set up DUBBS because I think this particular issue cuts right through the veneer of rationality that is presented to us through the mass media. Is the world so Kafka-esque that the experts who 'know' that DU is safe are so tired of liberal bellyaching that they will not stoop to set them straight. (With respect to DU, they must number in the millions by now.) Just tell me, where is the debate? (!!!!!!)
DU, for me, is a perfect test case for humanity. Either this issue gets addressed (and hopefully resolved) in proper two-sided debate, or we are all doomed. The accusations against DU, and the militaries that use it, are too profound for words. If no one will take the stand to defend DU weapons, and I mean the dust, then I don't see any reason to expect civilization to survive more than another few decades. By taking the stand, I mean engaging the DU activists and critics in free and open debate. Saying DU is "only" 40% as radioactive as "normal" uranium doesn't amount to debate. Nor does pointing to a small number of studies showing lack of harm while ignoring other studies that do identify harm.
In short, there IS a debate. But as far as I can see, not much debate is going on -- not in the press, not in legislatures, military committees or even on the Internet. Even outspoken bloggers get few enough comments on the subject. All seems one-sided. It is creeping me out (oh, Lord).
As I couldn't find a single BBS devoted specifically to the DU debate, I thought I'd start one. I hope you'll join in. You can probably tell what side I lean towards right now, but let me assure you, this is one argument I'd love to lose. Please prove to me that Western armies are not indescriminately poisoning foreign landscapes out of sheer lust for military supremacy.
I remember reading a quote from a Greek philospher on a classroom poster many years ago. It said something to the effect of discussions or arguments yielding higher truths than can ever be reached by one person thinking alone. I Googled, but can't find the exact quote. But I did find this from Socrates, and it pretty much sums up my feelings of the moment:
Quote:
How can you think that I would have any reason to refute you decisively other than the one which motivates my own search; fearing lest I might carelessly suppose that I know something that I do not know. For my part, I now say that this is what I do: I examine the argument primarily for my own sake, and no doubt likewise for the sake of my other close friends. Or would you not say that things as they truly are should become manifest as a common good of virtually all humankind?
(Socrates, Charmides)
(Socrates, Charmides)
Let's roll.
Peter Dearman
May 3, 2006