Depleted uranium ammunition IN SHANNON

by Seán Ryan Fri Feb 03, 2006 22:13

Could our government be lying?

I wonder could anyone produce a single statement from our imbecile government on any topic that does not violate any of the following conditions:

i. is irrelevent
ii is ambiguos
iii is a downright lie
iv is deliberately misleading or plain propaganda

I cannot find one.
And I've tried.

Sláinte,
Sean Ryan

by A10 Fri Feb 03, 2006 22:27

1]Daily Ireland?

2]Sgt Jim Massey,a combat vet who was in action in Iraq,but had nothing to do with transport,logistics,or re supply of his unit.[not a Sgts responsibility].

3]The warping of the entire arguement by peope who havent a clue about what actually DU ammo is,how it works or what weapons systems actually use it.

4] The FACT that DU is shipped by munitions ship and pre stocked in the area of Iraq looong before the invasion started.
5] The Fact that not one RELIABLE source from Shannon,or elswhere,has found,photographed,taken,seen,detected [use a geiger counter]or otherwise found one piece of paper or round of DU in any shape or form.What you need is solid PROOF not speculation or wild conspiricy theories.

by Seán Ryan Fri Feb 03, 2006 22:54

I'm quite familar with depleted uranium, how it's made and what it's used for. Admittedly it's only in that last couple of days that I've found out it's used in relatively small arms ammunition.

I wonder do you know this however.

DU is now also used as ballast in the manufacture of planes and boats, of course since this is an American big time waste product, they are mostly responsible for this too.

I wonder are any planes that land in shannon, using DU for ballast?

I wonder if they are, would this be illegal under Irish law?

Also if they are, could an accident, have the same effect as an actual deployment of a DU weapon? ie. phisiological, toxicological and other effects associated with radiation exposure

I'm not trying to scare monger or spin this, I'm very much unaware of the answers that exist to the questions asked in the last 3 questions. Although I pretty confident in my view of the third question.

But do allow me to add. That if DU laden planes, ballast or otherwise have landed in or flown over Ireland; I'll be very unhappy.

Seán

by A10 Fri Feb 03, 2006 23:24

Du uses as ballast in ships keels usually in high priced ocean yachts.Ballast in planes?First time as a pilot that I have ever heard of that one?Could you give an example of what model or type?Possibly in privately built aircraft experimentally maybe
Usually easier to counter balance an aircraft with fuel or baggage, or moving such around to find the center of gravity.

Also dont forget it is easier to get this "big time American waste" from Russian federation and numerous other nuke club member states that are abit short of the evil American Dollar.Also you might want to consider how radioactive is this stuff in small quantities?If it is used as ballast,the last thing anyone would want in the US would be a major lawsuit for selling rich civillians toxic products in their expensive toys.

Small arms,up to what calibre do you classify small arms?There is no category of relatively small arms.It is either small arms,machine gun or cannonBrowing 50 calibre[one half inch dia] machine guns or Vulcan 20mm cannons dont count. as small arms. Small arms are rifle pistol,shotgun,squad automatic weapons,sniper rifles.No one makes DU under 50 cal,not worth it and too heavy to carry a mag full.Plus it would have no practical purpose in small arm calibre size.

Doubt it would be illegal to land here if DU was used as a weight as it is then not a munition!

Also if it crashed it is not going to explode of its own accord.So dont worry about a dirty bomb effecte xcept possibly around the wreckage.Psychollogicy effecting only maybe freaky anti Americans and anti nuke folks.
Frankly we produce more medical radioactive waste here in Ireland that would be more dangerous if burnt than a private plane with Du weight.For the life of me I cant see where it would be used.

Cant tell you wether custom aircraft have flown over Ireland carrying DU ballast.But US airforce cargo craft most unlikely.Again,weight,mass,and preplanning of campains makes this unlikely in extremis.
But then as 10cc sang in Rubber bullet."watcha goin to do about it?"

by anon Sat Feb 04, 2006 00:03

I don't believe DU is been carried through Shannon on the basis of what Mr Rammy says, did he offer any proof? But I can't be sure it is not either based on what the gov or anyone else says.

by Seán Ryan Sat Feb 04, 2006 00:10

Here's a link to a page that tells about ballast and other stuff. Check out the bottom of the page.
http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/how.shtml

Again I'm no expert on weapons as such, but I'd classify any weapon that can be carried by and operated by an individual, to be an example of "relatively small arms."

Seán

by Edward Horgan - PANA Peace and Neutrality Alliance Sat Feb 04, 2006 00:39

In Nov 2002, the Department of Foreign Affairs was denying that US troops travelling through Shannon were carrying weapons and ammunition. In December 2002 they eventually admitted the troops were actually carrying weapons and that ammunition was also being carried on the aircraft.

The recent statements from US Embassy and Irish Department of Foreign Affairs do not deny that Depleeted Uranium may have passed through Shannon. They simply state that records at Department of Foreign Affairs and records at the US embassy do not support the claims that DU ammunition has passed through Shannon.
This is likely to be technically correct. The cargoe manifests are likely to contain only the limited information that, for example, 100,000 rounds or so many boxes of .5 callibre ammunition was being carried on particular flights. It would not specify whether this ammunition was normal ball ammunion, or tracer ammunition, or armour piercing ammunition (AP). The last one, armour piercing ammunition, is the one that would contain depleeted unanium, because the primary purpose of adding depleted uranium is to make the ammunition much harder and more dense, so that it is more effective for piercing armour, or reinforced concrete etc.

The cargoe aircraft that pass through Shannon on an almost daily basis, particularly US military cargoe planes such C130 hercules, and C17s are very likely to have transported heavy machinegun and cannon DU ammunition such as .5 calliber, 20mm and 30mm cannon ammunition. The usage of .5 callibre ammunition in Iraq is very high as this is one of principal weapons used on most
Humvee army scout vehicles and also on many Armoured personnel carriers. For these reasons, it is necessary to resupply medium callibre ammunition by aircraft on a very regular basis, and supply by ships is too slow, and also, supply by ship would also entail transport by road through Iraq, which is too dangerous.
Depleted Uranium was used very extensively in Fallujah.
Department of Foreign Affairs and US embassy are most likley to have been economical with the facts when they say that the information they have does not support the claims that DU Ammunition is passing through Shannon.
It is likely that it will be confirmed in time that significant quantities of Depleted Uranium ammunition has been transported through Shannon airport.
Documents discovered by me in the High Court in march 2003, showed that Cruise Type missiles were transported through or over Ireland during the Kosovo WAr. However they were described on the cargoe manifest as rocket motors, and it was only on much closer examination of the weight, fuel quantity and dimensions of these rocket motors, that it became clear that the 'rocket motors' were in fact Cruise Type missiles.
We need to shine lights into the dark corners of Shannon airport, and Foreign Affairs.

by Dr. Coilín ÓhAiseadha Sat Feb 04, 2006 01:25

I’ve been thinking along the same lines as Ed, who pipped me to the post while I was still writing.

When dealing with this kind of denial, it is vital to keep our eye on the ball. Rather than assuming that somebody is lying, we should seek to identify the ingenious ambiguities in the government's statements that serve to conceal the whole truth rather than to deny the key truth.

In this particular instance, there is no real contradiction between what Jimmy has said and what the spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs says.

Let's review:
1. Jimmy says that munitions manufactured from depleted uranium were transported through Shannon Airport.
2. The Department of Foreign Affairs says:
" ... there were no applications for the transport of depleted uranium munitions throughout the period of the Iraq war."
3. The US Embassy has confirmed that its records support the statement of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Let's assume that nobody involved is saying anything other than what he or she knows to be true. How can this be?

Not a difficult paradox to resolve: Perhaps the US Air Force transported depleted uranium munitions through Shannon _without applying for permission_. Hey, presto! No lies anywhere!

...

Note particularly that the spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs does not say that s/he thinks Jimmy is lying, or even mistaken, all s/he says is that _the Government's records do not support_ Jimmy's statement:
“Mr Massey's claim is not supported by the Government's records on the transit of munitions of war.”

Curiously enough, this particular statement is still true if recently extant records of the transit of DU through Shannon have been destroyed, removed or "lost".

...

Furthermore, please note that, according to one defínition, the war in Iraq started on 20 March and ended on 1 May, 2003, when Bush declared it to be over.

So the US may have applied for permission to transport DU through Shannon in the period before 20 March and/or from 1 May, 2003. It is quite possible that the US applied for such permission last week, and was granted it, and still neither the spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs nor the staff at the embassy would be lying.

...

In a similar way, please note that, around the end of 2004, at least two American embassies made emphatic statements that chemical weapons had not been used against civilians in the November assault on Fallujah. But an American artillery journal has published details of the use of white phosphorus in that assault.

This paradox is easily resolved by asserting that white phosphorus is a conventional weapon and/or that insurgents are not civilians.

I saved two of these denials at the time, and I find similar denials on the websites of three American embassies right now:
Cambodia: phnompenh.usembassy.gov/illegal_weapons.html
Argentina: buenosaires.usembassy.gov/chemical_weapons.html
Turkey: ankara.usembassy.gov/pr_11092005.html

The PDF file containing the text of the article, Indirect Fires in the Battle of Fallujah, from Field Artillery March-April 2005, has been removed from the sill-www.army.mil URL where I found it last month, but the full text can still be found elsewhere on the Web right now. I have saved a copy in case anybody needs it for reference purposes.

...

In summary, there is no need to lie if people like us don't keep our eyes on the ambiguities.

Remember what Clinton said: "I did not have sex with that woman." Fellatio, perhaps, but not sex.

Take it easy.
(But take it.)
Coilín.

by Seán Ryan Sat Feb 04, 2006 01:59

I've found some more links.

This link has a picture of what puports to be a document from the Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration from 1984 no less!
http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/federal_aviation.html

Avoiding or Minimizing Encounters with Aircraft Equipped with Depleted Uranium Balance Weights During Accident Investigations,

Sets an interesting tone doesn't it.

Of course some folk might just think that I'll post anything to make my point. For those folk this may prove a more trustworthy route.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Libra...ument

If that doesn't whet the appetite a bit check out yachtsman Eric Tabarly being barred from the Whitbread in 1973 for having a depleted uranium ballast.
http://www.volvooceanrace.org/raceguide/history/whitbre...hjs=0

Anyway I'm pretty sure I've answered my own questions now.

DU is used extensively in non-munitions. And has been for decades.

There is scientific literature around that suggests it is extremely harmful, particularly plane crashes.

And our goons in government, probably have no problem with DU being in Ireland. I say 'probably' because even if they said that they did have a problem with it, the evidence says otherwise.

Seán

by Caitlin - CodePink Ireland Sat Feb 04, 2006 05:34 codepinkireland at gmail dot com Ireland

I suppose this information belongs in the "For What It's Worth" department, but in 1990, whilst flying from Dallas, TX to Bangor, ME for a conference, all the baggage on my Delta Airlines flight was taken off the plane and replaced with weapons--rifles, rockets, ammo, without either the knowledge or consent of the passengers. How do I know this? Because I went out to the tarmac to smoke, and I saw the soldiers unloading these munitions from the aircraft I'd just been on. Moreover, I was swiftly escorted off the tarmac by an MP and told to stay inside the airport. The luggage from my flight did not arrive until the next day.

At the conference, most all the particpants had undergone the same experience with their luggage, although a few who'd flown from California never received their baggage. I later learned that such commandeering of cargo space on domestic airlines destined for Bangor, ME during the months of July & August 1990 was commonplace, Why Bangor? Because former president GHW Bush wanted to throw some business to his "other" home state, Maine. Although Poppy Bush claimed Texas residency (for tax purposes), his real home was--and remains--Kennebunkport, ME.

If the U.S. Department of Defense has no problem covertly militarizing domestic airliners and playing "Russian Roulette" with civilian passengers, do you really believe the DOD gives a damn about what it sends through Ireland?

~~~~~

"Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed."
I. F. Stone

by Seán Ryan Sat Feb 04, 2006 07:33

It's worth lots Caitlin, it's more weight to the evidence against Bush and against Bertie. It's more evidence than exists to prove Bertie's stated position in all this.

I'd like to add a little something to the mix.

In Gulf War I. Papa Bush deployed approximately 400 tonnes of DU.
See my article:- http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74048 ( Please take note of how old some of my evidence is.)
He deployed some 580,400 soldiers (mostly poor kids).
11,000 of those soldiers are now dead.
By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability.

Berklau tells us:
Terry Jamison, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, at the VA Central Office, recently reported that ‘Gulf Era Veterans’ now on medical disability, since 1991, number 518,739 Veterans,” said Berklau.

“The long-term effects have revealed that DU (uranium oxide) is a virtual death sentence,” stated Berklau. “Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers (from the 2003 Iraq War) as ‘spectacular … and a matter of concern!’”

Who is Berklau?

Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York
Read more on this, it hit the headlines jan 21 2006:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArti...=1771

Bertie take notice.
Seán

by Seán Ryan Sat Feb 04, 2006 08:36

I forgot to add this link earlier.

If you are of a gentle nature you might not want to click.

If you have helped facilitate, or indeed if you've taken part in illegal wars, you should look. It's a byproduct of your rule. Your idea of humanity allows for it. And you should click. See your creation and read the past and the future. This is an example of pacific settlement of disputes.
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m19690&l=i&size=1&hd=0

I'll leave you to the daylight and to the dayshift.
Séan

by Insomniac Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:25

Not on the subject of DU this time, just a little reminder of the value of human life. This time it's even more American lives. The Deathtoll of 9/11 is not over yet. It will probably eventually kill a lot more people than were killed on 9/11. Who's the terrorist this time?

The American government.

Very hot off the press.
http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/newyork/nyc-ny...print

by A10 Sat Feb 04, 2006 22:21

Sean,
It would help if Uhuru net was in English,no speaka da Italiano here.
The FAA advisory is ancient and hasnt been updated since 1984.Plus it provides BCS and mentions Mc Donnel Douglas aircraft as having these weights.Not a very common aircraft BTW in European airspace and becoming less so even in the US as alot of these will be now at end of life of service..The USAF and reserve transport generally use Lockheed and Boeing.Also your other link on the uses of DU also states that it is used in medicine and cancer treatments.Does that mean we should get it out of Irish hospitals as well?In case it is nicked by local AQ to build a dirty bomb???
Also may I educate you further on weaponary??Any weapon that is above a 50 cal is a CREW SERVED weapon.IE it needs two or more people to operate and carry it.Small arms are literally..well..small that an individual can carry it.
Crew weapons are usually mounted in a static position or on a jeep or armourd car.Again no oe makes DU ammo for small arms simply because ten bullets in DU would weigh as much as 30 normal bullets and a normal soilder does not need to take on targets that require that type of penetration.
Also Ed Horgan is being very liberal with the truth[as per usual].He would know that AP ammo does not necessarily have to be made from DU.It can also be steel tungsten cored,or filled with phosperous as well.So if all AP ammo is made from DU that means that the Irish army must use it as well as the Browning 50 is also used by our army,especially the" tank "corps.Also he is showing his military ignorance and this is surprising for somone who supoposedly was a commmandant.
He would know about pre conflict stockpiling of munitions and equipment.IE what the Allies did in the UK before they invaded Normandy in 1944.You put a massive supply of equipment ,arms,etc in the country you will jump off from and draw from it.As you draw from it there is a continious resupply by your supply lines from your home country,This means by SHIP.The tonnage a ship can carry outweighs five planes anyday.The thought that as Ed describes ammo is in such short supply that it has to be flown in and espically small cannon ammo that weigh three times as much as normal ammo is laughable in the extreme.But maybe they did it like that in the "dads army"of Ireland,where Captain Mainwring..er sorry Ed served in.Planes would be only used to deliver it to forward bases under seige,like Da nang in Vietnam.Actually it would be more like transport choppers.
For what it is worths story.Very intresting except for one glitch.There is no way in Hell you would be allowed to smoke outside on the tarmac in a US airport.The FAA would have whoever in charge of the airport guts for garters.It isint fascist anti smoking Ireland you are in.

by Coilín Sat Feb 04, 2006 22:57

A10, when you get to the uruknet site, I suggest you scroll down to get to the English bit.

Hint: It starts like this:
Nuclear War: Depleted Uranium
Jack's "Straight-Speak"

du-baby19.jpg

January 16, 2006
​ ​​​​There are two essays/reports by Leuren Moret on Depleted Uranium in this post. Both are as important reading as anything I have come across. ...

Best,
Coilín.

by Seán Ryan Sat Feb 04, 2006 23:38

If you wait a bit and scroll down the page about an inch on the uhuru site, the article will load up in English. The rest is in different languages. The English article, when that page loads, takes up the vast majority of the overall page area. I think it important that you read this article, you sound like you care about the soldiers. The figures may be somewhat off in the article in areas (they are 'around' the same values as those given in other links I posted.) But nonetheless, the evidence offered is very compelling, and important data checks out, so far as I've been able to check. This is still all being put together, most new data having only arisen in the last few weeks (From very reputable sources I hope you'll agree.), trying to sort the wheat from the chaff is challenging. But the picture emerging, should remove any contention we have.

I've done some more research into Boeing and Lockhead. Both use significant ammounts of Depleted Uranium. The official line on this is, that this practice is being discontinued. eg Boeing somtimes gives steel aileron ballasts, as replacements. Anyway most conservative estimates, ie by Boeing and Lockhead suggest that 50% of planes fitted with DU still carry it. Here's two links, Boeing appears in both and Lockheed only in the second. Evidence towards the safety of DU expressed by these companies agrees with your view, that it's not too dangerous. But remeber that this view contradicts the older data I offered you. Over all I think you will be quite surprised at the ammount of DU that is used.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/depleted_uranium.html
http://www.wise-uranium.org/ruxcw.html

The doccumentation I offered you earlier was indeed very old. And I'd agree with you it has probably been replaced. But I think a very important point would be that the symptoms and effects described way back then, are exactly the same as those described today. They have not changed. I think that's significant. I think also that you may have a better idea of the actual American military than I, and you may be able to find fault with the research presented in the uhuru article if it exists, in that quite a few military heads get a mention.

As I said earlier, I've no clue about guns. I think my confusion on small arms has arisen because sometimes some DU rounds are described as bullets in some newer articles, I always though that bullets got fired out of small arms, I don't know if that helps to explain where I may have misunderstood. I think if I were to comment on this side of the debate, I'd muddy the waters and not do any of us any favours. And the same goes for demographics and deployments I'm afraid.

Seán

by Seán Ryan Sun Feb 05, 2006 13:53

Mr Horgan,
I may have found evidence that the government allowed munitions through Shannon, that contained depleted uranium.

You provided it.

Every cruise missile has a depleted uranium ballast.

Check this out:
"There has been quite a dispute, which some of you may know, since the war is on in Kosovo whether or not Depleted Uranium ammunition was being used. In a sense this adds to the problem but you should know that every Cruise missile contains Depleted Uranium ballast and when that missile impacts that ballast is again aerosolized into very small particles of uranium glass that can be breathed in and it will stay in body 10 years or more and it keeps irradiating the tissue around it wherever it is in the body!!"

This is part of a statement from an audio transcript I found, from DR. ROSALIE BERTELL.

Dr. Bertell was one of nine prominent Canadians speaking at:
An Unjust and Illegal WAR: Leading opponents of the War against Yugoslavia speak out: A public meeting held at Convocation Hall
at the University of Toronto May 6 1999.

Dr. Rosalie Bertell is one of the world's leading authorities on health effects of low level radiation. For a decade she worked for the US National Cancer Institute and for 30 years has been in the forefront of research on the effects of low level radiation on human health. In 1984 she founded the International Institute of Concern for Public Health in Toronto.

Here's the transcript:
http://www.peace.ca/depleteduranium.htm

Peace,
Sean.

by Seán Ryan Sun Feb 05, 2006 14:28

This site gives a lot more information, just look down the lefthand side, a few pictures down and missile info starts:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/du-watch/us_gov_about...u.htm

by Seán Ryan Sun Feb 05, 2006 14:58

PDF file, lists DU weapons. Loads of missiles use DU including cruise types. I know shag all about these things and specs need to be compared to the data Ed referred to. Boeing and Lockheed feature too:
http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/pdfs/DU2102A3b.pdf

by A10 Sun Feb 05, 2006 20:12

Sean
as your article said,unless this stuff is burned it is pretty harmless[as radioactive substances go]So unless we have a plane crash carrying this stuff,which I belive highly doubtful in Ireland,and as the article also said the fact that it is being replaced by other materials on newer designs[Most commerical airline aircarft have a service life of appx 20 years When was for the last time you travelled if you fly in a 747 jumbo jet?].So it is becoming alot less of a risk. It would also be pretty humerous if Aer Lingus and Ryanair had the DU bits on their aircraft?? Where do we stand then?
As for it being in cruise missiles etc.well considering thatthey were eesigned to carry originally tactical NUKES.An extra bit of DU was not going to make that much difference was it?

Also there is another clanger in Ed Horgans reserach,he claimed that there was fuel in the cruise missiles when shipped thru Shannon.BZZT,you do not fuel cruise missiles until they are ready to be deployed,not when they are transported.Also they use normal JP fuel.So there is nothing unusual there as well.
finally,on "bullets" As such that applies up to .50cal,anything over and including 50cal are shells.It is helpful and more accurate to define this difference otherwise it makes it too emotive and difficult to discuss these issuesproperly.

It always amazes me for the anti war side,how many people can be ignorant about the enemy[IE armies and how they function] Knowing somthing about your enemy is always helpful.

by Dr. Coilín Oscar ÓhAiseadha Mon Feb 06, 2006 08:34

Thanks for your comments, A10.

Perhaps you can answer some questions:

When bullets or shells made of depleted uranium impact on another hard surface, what happens to the DU?

What effects does pulverised DU have on the health of a previously healthy American soldier or Iraqi civilian when he or she inhales it?

Which properties of DU, besides its radioactivity, make it injurious to the health of soldiers and civilians exposed to it?

What interest do you think the people of Ireland have in protecting the health of American soldiers serving in Iraq?

What duties does the government of Ireland have to protect the health of passengers transiting through Irish airports?

Best,
Coilín.

PS: The following is a link to the original article on Daily Ireland:
http://tinyurl.com/dgdm7
TinyURL is a very handy tool to make awfully long URL's very short: www.tinyurl.com

But I digress. WHO can tell us about the injurious properties of DU:

by Charles B. Mon Feb 06, 2006 15:23

In my humble opinion, if the true effects of DU on the civilian populations of Iraq, Kosovo etc. become apparent , there should be significant public outrage. Its alright for folk like A-10 (gay georgi etc.) to masturbate over the calibre of small arms, the content of munitions besides nuclear waste, the deployment&delivery procedures for cruise missiles, but its the people of these areas who will feel the full effect of the use of this material. I also feel for the American soldiers who are suffering from GWS, but its the stats from the hospitals which tell the true story, the leukaemia, the birth defects, the other horrible side effects of the use of these munitions. The use of DU by the US military is evil, unforgivable and even for those who believe in the theory of a 'Just War', it is unnecessary. Could the US not have hammered the already weakened Iraqi army with "conventional" weapons. I believe that the use was part experiment (the kind at which the Angel of Death himself would have been wary) and part cheap disposal of nuclear waste.
The whole thing stinks, and for people like A-10 to attempt to condone it or dilute the message that this is a massively important issue, is disgraceful. This is certainly low level nuclear war, but this will not become apparent for some time, and it is up to people like those of you who have posted here to ensure that this becomes a national talking point, and in time an international scandal.

by Henk van der Keur - Laka Foundation, Amsterdam Mon Feb 06, 2006 15:51 info at laka dot org Ketelhuisplein 43 - 1091VE Amsterdam - the Nehterlands 0031206168294

Dear Coilín,

On any hard surface 40 to 60 percent of a kinetic energy penetrator of uranium on impact will 'vaporise' into micro-sized particles. Around 20 to 40 percent of these particles are less than 10 micrometer in diameter and are inhalable. The problem is that most of these particles are insoluble or scarcely insoluble. They will stuck into the lungs for a long time. Slowly the particles enter the blood stream and will affect other organs, especially the kidneys. Finally the uranium will end up in the bones (just like for example strontium, uranium is a bone seeker), where it will be settled like calcium.

While the Pentagon spokesmen keep saying that there is nothing wrong with exposure to (depleted) uranium dust, their own scientists, like Dr. Alexandra Miller of the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI), are quite concerned about the results of their studies (you can search and find them on the worrld wide web). Alexandra thinks the changing of healthy human cells into tumor-inducing cells (caused by DU) are caused by synergetic effects. Which means that the impact of DU is larger than the sum of the toxicity (comparible with nickel and cadmium) and the radiation (mainly alpha and beta). Her view is supported by Dr. Keith Baverstock who has been the Head of the WHO's Radiation Protection Service for more than 10 years.

Exposure to DU dust is connected with many ailments, among them: ALS, cancers, leukemias and births defects.

I am of the opinion that it is - for strategic reasons - very important to focus on the veterans who have been affected by DU. That is probably the best way to get more attention on this issue. Moreover, thanks to veterans' organisations a lot of important information on DU has been retrieved by the Freedom of Information Act.

Best, Henk van der Keur
Laka Foundation
Documentation and Research Center on Nuclear Energy
member of the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons

by i believe jimmy Mon Feb 06, 2006 20:19

Look if I have a choice between Jimmy Massey and the US embassy on this one, I know who I believe

here is the link to the full Daily Ireland article mentioned in intial post.

http://dailyireland.televisual.co.uk/home.tvt?_ticket=2...opp=1

Ex-Marine: ‘Uranium ammo was at airport’

by David Lynch

03/02/2006

Depleted uranium ammunition has been carried through Shannon Airport on board US military cargo planes on the way to Iraq, a former US soldier claimed yesterday.
Jim Massey, a former marine platoon sergeant in the US army, said he had used the controversial ammunition while on duty in Iraq.
“I know for a fact that ammunition has been brought through Shannon airport,” he told Daily Ireland yesterday.
Mr Massey is in Ireland this week speaking at a series of anti-war meetings.
If true, Mr Massey’s claims will be shocking for the Irish government which has said that US military aircraft would not be given permission to land at Shannon Airport, if they were carrying depleted uranium ammunition..............

by Seán Ryan Mon Feb 06, 2006 20:54

It seems there may be some confusion, innocently enhanced by A10.

Allow me to clear this up once and for all.

I used a term "relatively small arms" and said that depleted uranium ammunition was available for them.

A10 got incensed by this term and in no uncertain terms told me that the techinical term was "small arms."

I admitted I wasn't an arms expert and deferred (sarcasm is lost on the innocent) to his technical 'expertise.'

I apologise to readers for this. I actually still stand by what I said. DU ammunition is available for ' relatively small arms. ' Please note that A10 referred to 'sniper rifles.' DU ammunition is available for sniper rifles and indeed was tested and perfected in the first Gulf War. I'm not sure which other small arms DU is available for, hence my use of the word 'relatively.' Relative to whatever George Bush, Tony Blair, and to a slightly lesser degree, Bertie Ahern, what they see as the end result of this united assault. Bertie's act of criminality made all the more obscence, by his fawning act of blindness on his own behalf on our collective behalf and on his masters bidding.

I can find no information whatsoever on Irish policy of educating its population, as to what DU is, what it does, and how abundant it is, even here in his own fucking garden!

To hear him (Bertie and those he represents) or those other idiots who chitter and chatter for him, glibly do away with the accusation put to them, is the most disgusting and anti-Irish act I have ever had the nausea to suffer.

Sean Ryan

by A10 Tue Feb 07, 2006 15:47

If you want to display your "scarcasm" and more likely your ignorance of somthing you are going to pontificate on ad naueseum.
Taking your points again,and maybe like that other twit who claims that I masterbuate over arms etc.Maybe aid cretin could learn somthing here as werll.Fact is I served in an armed force and proably know more about this subject[Apart from Saint Edward Horgan] than the entier anti war collective put together.
First off YOU ARE WRONG in describing weapons as "Relatively small arms" They are either small arms,crew served weapons or cannon.As you said that you are ignorant of weapons ,I tried to educate you,but you still insist on making a fool of yourself in justifying this.
2]Please prove your point of "sniper weapons" having DU ammo,apart from the US 50Cal Barrett rifle or the Soviet Gepard 12.5mm rifle what other weapons are there,?? Also what would it be used for in a small caliber than 50cal???
Second when we are talking about DU it is supposedly in a munitions context???No then the issue is sidestepped onto DU being on aircraft as balance weights etc.A nice piece of fudge the issue?I mentioned that it is more than likely on Aer Lingus aircrafrt as well as Ryanair aircraft,and why are we making no fuss asbout it?Silence ensues!

As for beliving Sgt Massey.well belive all you want.
BUT unless he loaded the DU ammo in the US aboard the aircraft,signed for it's storage,secured it,can tell us exactly where,when,how much etc. and where it was used.I DO NOT BELIVE A WORD OF IT!!!! It sounds like Massey 's words were twisted to the usual Anti American propaganda.Did anyone question him on more detail on this??Or is it oh..he is a good anti American war protestor.his word is gospel????Question authorithy....Question your sacred cows more like.. Truth hurts somtimes people,get used to it,somone trying to dilute or whatever is nauesating to some.But hey this is the really real world people where Facts not some crap anti American hate wank session counts.
To answer Doctor Conor whatever his name is in a dead langauge.[Sorry,but I refuse to speak that Fascist Gaelic langauge]

1] Am surprised at your callousness as somone who has taken the hippocratic oath with your comment why should people in Ireland be concerned with the health of US service personel?Some of them are IRISH you know?
Maybe answer this why should Irish illegal aliens in the US get prefential treatment for visas and green cards than any other ethnic group?
2] The irish govt owes no more duty of care to Irish citizens using the airports than they do if they were using Heuston station.
3]The DU stays put in the hit target,apart from the amount that is pulverised.However it is also dangerous due to it's heavy metal properties.
Your point being???
Would also add re this DU debate are we going to keep classifying DU in shannon as everything inc aircraft weights or just concentrate on munitions ???

by Seán Ryan Tue Feb 07, 2006 19:30

Let me say again. This time read it slowly.

I did not invent a new weapons classification. ie. 'relatively small arms.' I should have used the word, 'some,' rather than 'relatively.' But hey I didn't expect a song and a dance over it.

Please note as part of your description of 'small arms,' you included sniper rifles. I described 'relatively small arms' as describing a weapon that can be carried and wielded by a single person. A sniper rifle, definitely fits into this profile. And there are DU 'bullets' available for it. As for their calibre? I don't honestly care. Or the make of the rifles? Irrelevent, besides Indy doesn't do advertising and neither do I.

You slagged off, Dr. Coilín, spinning it that he doesn't care about American soldiers. Let me guess you don't score high on verbal reasoning?

As for asserting the Irish government have no duty to protect the citizenship of Ireland when their own, blindness/complicity, is responsible for the dangers offered. Cop on!

If you'd read what you have presumed to reply to, you'd know that DU, whether in oxidised aerosol form, or in solid munitions left around, after their deployment, always get spread. It is a fact A10 that everything burns eventually. Note many links given, have shown that DU debris left all over the place is especially dangerous to children playing in the area. Remember tis a hand to mouth existence when you are a child!

You asserted earlier, that my arguments we not effective because I do not know my enemy. You were wrong here too. Firstly you got it wrong when you described my enemy as American soldiers. Secondly you got it wrong when you suggested I didn't know my enemy. I most certainly do.

I put it to you A10, that despite all the shite you speak that supposedly defends American ideal, despite claiming to have an affinity for American soldiers and pilots, that it is you yourself who is the enemy of American soldiers. Especially the half million or so who are now fully disabled, due to their experiences of DU in the first Gulf War.

As for the re-classification of DU.

You were perfectly willing to point out that nobody had a clue about the stuff. So I educated you. Remember you thought DU wasn't used in planes? Remebering that you are a pilot. Each and every argument you gave was defeated, and still you act as if you'd made a singular point in the whole 'debate.' Note this is not an opening to bring up weapon calibres and other shite you tried to blur the picture with.

Grow up.

sincerely,
Sean Ryan

by Bertie Lover Tue Feb 07, 2006 22:30

Where is this all going to end? You seem to take the word of a complete stranger(massey)
and write about what he said like it was gospel,I could also stand up in front of a crowd
and tell you that I know the truth of what happened in Iraq,and what was on those planes coming through Shannon,would you believe me? of course you would!

From what I can see you will believe anyone who can fuel your cause and slag off the people that don't agree.So what is that you people are trying to do?Are you trying to help the people of Iraq,I'm sure they would be grateful to know that you are fighting their cause over here!!!!

Wouldn't it be much better to put all your energy and time in to doing something about helping these people instead of sitting in front of your computers writing about it.

by Eoin Dubsky Wed Feb 08, 2006 00:42

The Gov's statement on DU is basically no different from their position on torture flights. Just because they say they hear no evil and see no evil, doesn't mean we can trust that they aren't in fact up to their chins in the stuff. Indeed, my money is on what Senator Richard Marty said regarding CIA torture in Europe... Sure, some governments may not know about it, but European security services must know.

Two cases in point:

The Irish Government ignored the fact that United States soldiers passing through Shannon Airport on civilian aircraft, were carrying unauthorised weapons and amunition with them on the plane. The government only began to comply with the law when their noncompliance had been exposed during discovery for my High Court case against them, January 2003. If the High Court hadn't forced their hand, the government would still be running Shannon refueling like an illegal tip head. See http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/01/20/story39...0.asp

Amnesty International's report "Ireland and the Arms Trade: Decoding the Deals" (2001, Amnesty International Irish Section) sheds light on the related area of Irish arms export licensing. Among many other failures in the system, the report shows that government officials return unsuccessful arms export license requests "off the record", to be reworded and perhaps resubmitted, so that they never have to "fail" anyone.

by Coilín Thu Feb 09, 2006 02:47

Thanks to Henk van der Keur of the Laka Foundation for a sober, factual answer to some of my questions.

And thanks, A10 - whoever you are - for your reply: illogical in places, but still valuable.

A10 wrote:
"1] Am surprised at your callousness as somone who has taken the hippocratic oath with your comment why should people in Ireland be concerned with the health of US service personel? Some of them are IRISH you know?"

I made no such comment. I asked five questions, and one of them was: "What interest do you think the people of Ireland have in protecting the health of American soldiers serving in Iraq?" As the question indicates, I was looking for _your_ thoughts on the matter.

My own answer would be: The basic compassionate interest of kindly human beings in response to the suffering of others. In other words: Every interest.

It seems to me that your comments reveal your prejudices about members of the peace movement like myself. We should get together and talk about this stuff over a glass of juice or a cup of coffee some time. You might be surprised to see your misconceptions disintegrate. : )

You write:
"2] The irish govt owes no more duty of care to Irish citizens using the airports than they do if they were using Heuston station."

Conversely, the Irish government owes JUST AS MUCH duty of care to passengers using the airports as they do those using Heuston Station. (Hey! Can anybody tell me whether there are any American troops or hazardous military cargo passing through Heuston Station?)

Also, please note that my concern is for all passengers through Shannon, particularly the troops being flown to fight in Iraq. I don’t know why you interpreted my question to refer to Irish citizens. You are the author of everything you read between the lines.

As a doctor, it is of grave concern to me that thousands of America's finest are being sent to kill and be killed in Iraq. And probably most of my fellow Irishmen and -women share my disgust and dismay at our government for permitting so many young innocents to be transported to suffer death or debilitating injury in Iraq. If our government were the loyal and courageous friend of the American people, it would never permit this. I reckon any one of those boys or girls sitting in sand camo in the transit lounge at Shannon has got more courage in the tip of his or her little toenail than the whole of my government put together.

I have not taken the Hippocratic oath, but my perception of my duties as a doctor involves a vow to protect life and to use all I've got to protest against war.

A10 wrote:
"Maybe answer this why should Irish illegal aliens in the US get prefential treatment for visas and green cards than any other ethnic group?"

I can't think of any good reason for this. Can you?

A10 wrote:
“3]The DU stays put in the hit target,apart from the amount that is pulverised. However it is also dangerous due to it's heavy metal properties.
Your point being???”

My point being that - as Henk so kindly wrote - a significant proportion is pulverised and some of this pulverised stuff can get inhaled and cause heavy metal poisoning. Just so that people know that radioactivity is not the only mechanism by which DU can make you sick or kill you – particularly if you are some unfortunate soldier that is inhaling this stuff.

Keep well,
Coilín.

PS: I know what size A4 is, but is A10 small or what? I reckon the smallest bus ticket I ever saw is bigger than A10.
: )

by Coilín Thu Feb 09, 2006 03:22

Bertie Lover wrote:
“From what I can see you will believe anyone who can fuel your cause ...”

Thank you for sharing this with us, lover! : )

I don’t necessarily believe everything Jimmy says. BUT I note that the government’s key statements do not actually contradict what Jimmy has said. Maybe this is because _the government_ knows what I don't know, that Jimmy is telling the truth?

Bertie Lover went on to make a very thoughtful suggestion:
“Wouldn't it be much better to put all your energy and time in to doing something about helping these people instead of sitting in front of your computers writing about it.”

As a veteran of the Danish peace movement of very recent years, I can tell you that “sitting in front of your computers writing about it” is a very valuable activity that can drive the media to keep their socks pulled up, turn public opinion upside down and sometimes inspire the defence minister to resign. And that kind of political hazard may help the people of the next country Denmark was thinking of invading.

It's people like us - people who are not afraid to put our names to what we say - who make a decisive difference to what people think.

But maybe that's precisely why Bertie asked his lover to log on to the IMC and try to persuade us to stop spoiling things for him?

BTW, you have my deepest sympathies: If I were Bertie's lover, I think I would want to stay anonymous, too! : )

And, in fact, I think I see a pattern emerging here: The spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs was anonymous, the spokesperson for the US embassy was anonymous, and now Bertie's lover remains anonymous. I take this as a sign that all three of you - Dermot Ahern, James C. Kenny and Bertie Ahern - are acting as your own anonymous lovers/spokespersons, that you know the game will soon be up, and that you don't want anybody to know what you said when it comes to the tribunals.

Best of luck with it! : )
Coilín.

by Coilín Thu Feb 09, 2006 03:30

Letters to the editor
Paradoxical Shannon statements
07/02/2006

David Lynch’s article about the alleged transportation of depleted uranium through Shannon Airport raises a pressing paradox. How can former Marine Platoon Sergeant Jimmy Massey allege that munitions containing this toxic, radioactive metal have been transported through Shannon, while a government spokesperson denies record of it?
I am reluctant to think that the government’s spokesperson has lied, but unconvinced that Mr Massey is mistaken.
Having reviewed the various statements, I see at least three possible solutions to the paradox.
Firstly, I note that the spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs says that “there were no applications for the transport of depleted uranium munitions throughout the period of the Iraq war", and the American embassy agrees.
So perhaps the United States transported the munitions through Shannon without applying for permission?
Secondly, I note that the spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs says: “Mr Massey’s claim is not supported by the government’s records on the transit of munitions of war.”
Have relevant records perhaps been destroyed or lost?
Thirdly, I note that, by one defínition, the war in Iraq started on March 20 and ended exactly six weeks later. Since the spokesperson refers to the war in the past tense, this may be his/her thinking.
Hence, the US may have made many successful applications to the Department of Foreign Affairs, both before March 20 and after May 1, 2003, and still neither the spokesperson for the Department nor the staff at the US embassy is lying when they say that no such applications were made “throughout the period of the Iraq war”.
I surmise that the department’s spokesperson is a frequent pilgrim to the Blarney stone. This might explain an exceptional display of the gift of the gab.
Dr Coilín Oscar ÓhAiseadha.
Co Kildare.

I reckon this demonstrates the benefits of sitting at your computers and writing about it.

Thanks to the good people at Daily Ireland for providing such prompt service to the customer. Maybe I should read Daily Ireland instead of The Irish Times every day?

Best,
Coilín.

by A10 Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:52

May I ask f you have not taken the Hippocratic oath,what kind of DOCTOR are you exactly?????
I mean the rev Ian Paisley for example has a title of Doctor as well for example.As has Gay Byrne,yet I doubt either of them would know a spatula from a scalpel.Both of them are honary doctorates handed out by some university[for what I dunno].you also claim to be a medical doctor,yet also claim tyo never have taken the hippocratic oath???How so???One of the pre requsits before you get your medical degree..Not playing the man here,but it seems that some folks like to dig up their doctor titles to impress others in movements and arguements.

Now ,back to the debate.
The way you framed your question about the Irish pouplation caring about what happened to Irish troops passing thru Shannon,struck me as being asked in a callous fashion.Sort of like"What the Hell do we the Irish people care if those Effin Yanks get killed by DU,Islamic terrorists or what ever.Good enough for them!"And quite frankly that seems to be the tone of most Indymedia arguements.Bash Yanks at every available oppurtunity.
As for te "innocence of anyone in sand cammo passing thru Shannon".Well ..lets see... you join a group of men and women whose soul function in this life is to destroy another body of men and women.Removing all the politics,paroles,slogans etc.That is really an armies function.Now,I do know that the average American teenager has dumbed down alot since I lived there 20 years ago.But you cant get over the fact that they voulenteerd to enlist in this organisation,they know that their country is fighting a war,albeit a very ill defined and with questionable end goals.
You cant say they are innocent.Unless they are total cretins.Which I doubt as well.

As for that lot in the Dail not standing up to the US on this;Lets look at it like this.There are how many millions invested here from the US?There are how many "Irish" in the US who have a vote.Who still keep a romantic tie to the "oul Sod" and can influence decisions back here thru money,and behind the scenes power plays.There are how many illegal Irish over in the US that could be rounded up and dumped back here pretty quickly?In short Bertie&Co know as all politicans do,where the money comes from and that we have no chance of telling the US to get lost on alot of issues without some serious political,financial,and social backlash.Will any govt or opolitican risk his career and power to challange a country that has benefitted his own,just because a minority of the pouplation has a grudge against it?We are still closer to Boston than Berlin.
Some realism in the Anti American crowd is needed somtime.

Plus if you remember the days post 9/11.I do remember Bertie saying that the Irish would honour and help the US by keepingShannon transit open in the war against terror.

Inhaling DU,well unless you are going to go crawling around shot up military vechicles looking for souviners.There is a very good chance of you not coming into contact with the stuff.It is proably one reason why there are so many ex service personel with DU poisioning after Gulf one.

As for duty of care.Well, the Irish public and passengers dont generally get to stroll around the tarmac [bar the anti American war protestors,and that I do think shows a lack of duty of care by the Irish govt in the bad security in Shannon]]and be up close to aircraft as they do busses and trains.
so they are hardly going to get into contact with this fictious transport of DU in Shannon.Nor are they likely to go groping around aircraft for DU weights.Which are insulated by being coverd in some sort of radioactive blocking material.
They are more likely to get in contact with radioactive substances at your local cancer treatment centres in our hospitals.[And that stuff is more likely to be disposed of sloppily than any DU.] So there is a duty of care already established.
Prejudiced?No just amazed somtimes at the naiveity and ignorance as well as the blatant emotive hate,that is then used as a rational arguement by some here.

by Balor Thu Feb 09, 2006 17:28

"In short Bertie&Co know as all politicans do,where the money comes from and that we have no chance of telling the US to get lost on alot of issues without some serious political,financial,and social backlash.Will any govt or opolitican risk his career and power to challange a country that has benefitted his own,just because a minority of the pouplation has a grudge against it?We are still closer to Boston than Berlin.
Some realism in the Anti American crowd is needed somtime"

that is what i was trying to say earlier.
Though, it's erroneous to say everyone objecting to the policies of the current republican government in America are automatically anti-American. your comment is akin to me saying i hate margaret thatcher's politics therefore it follows she is representative of how all British people think.

by Coilín Fri Feb 10, 2006 22:52

Thanks for your well-considered reply, A10.

Just a few brief comments:
I know many Americans take the Hippocratic oath, but I never heard of any European doing anything so arcane.
Take a look at this, please: "I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath."
I swear by the ancient Greek gods to be a good doctor? I don't think so!
Medical ethics has moved on since the time of the ancient Greeks, and we now have stuff coming from conventions where the profession unites to denounce the participation of doctors in torture, and the like, so that oath is obsolete.
This looks like a good article about the oath and other ethical agreements, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Anyway, I think you now understand that I did not mean my question the way you interpreted it.

I call the troops innocents, not because they are particularly unintelligent, but because most of them are just too young and naive to understand the propaganda and the complexities of the political games that are being played with their lives. I've had friendly debates with soldiers, and have found them to be decent, caring people who really can't be held fully responsible for the war crimes they are enrolled in. I hold the top officers and political leaders responsible, and so will the war crimes tribunal that comes after this losing strategy of war without end brings America to its knees.

I don't buy the stuff about a political backlash if we the people of Ireland reclaim Shannon. The reasons so much money has been invested in Ireland in recent years include tax concessions, stable industrial relations, good infrastructure, well-educated, English-speaking people, access to the European market, etc. At the top of the list come tax concessions and other economic advantages, and Bush has precious little influence on where the money goes, because global capital follows the rules of the market.

Apart from that, my generation must drag Ireland out of military alliances so that our children and grandchildren are not dragged into endless, escalating warfare against an elusive enemy whose strength and power grow in direct proportion to the violence with which we pursue him.

As for the reference to anti-Americanism, I can't take responsibility for anybody else's comments, but I think I have made it quite clear that much of my motivation for criticising the bellicose policies of the American administration is derived from solidarity with the American _people_.

Just to conclude, here is a list of some of my favourite Americans and American things:
1. Mark Twain. I first read Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn when I was about 10, and again very recently. Huckleberry Finn is an awesome work of satire.
2. Ultimate frisbee, a non-contact team sport of skill and stamina.
3. Howard Zinn, whose book, A People's History of the United States, is the most interesting and entertaining history book I ever read.
4. The bow drill, a piece of ancient technology perfected by the American Indians, which can be made from local materials and used to make fire almost anywhere in the world.
5. The art of screenwriting, perfected by the film industry in Hollywood, which - despite some truly dreadful abuses of the art - represents the height of our knowledge of dramaturgy and "storytelling" in the broadest sense.

Catch you later. Keep well.
Coilín.

by A10 Sat Feb 11, 2006 15:22

Ok thanks for clearing up what you are as a doctor.I suppose the hippocratic oath is nowadays considerd a ritual,more than anything else.
If you want to drag Ireland out of "military alliances",you would be better off keeping us out of the EU and their "battlegroups".This is really where the problem is.The US passing tru Shannon,is realy a farrago of nonsense.That the anti war[american] crowd want to use as their focus point.We had it in Gulf war one,in Shannon when there was a UN mandate to liberate Quwait.All and sundry protested.Cant remember what it was like here in the Vietnam days,but I doubt it was there.[But it was remarkably silent when the Sovs passed thru going to Cuba,and Latin America with very large transport aircraft,whom they wouldnt let anyone look at either.Wonder was any body worried who was being rendited then to the Gulags somwhere?]

The enemy who with every strike against it becomes more powerful? not necessarily so.
A percentage of a religion who supports this idiocy.Does that mean all Irish people support the IRA?Of course not.!
A war that will bring America to it's knees???I really think my friend you would want to check up some more US history.The only place the USA"lost"if you can call it that is Vietnam,and what price victory there?A devestated country more polluted than Iraq or anywhere else,under a despotic communist rule for 20plus years after,which is now welcoming back in the American oppressors with their capitalist dollars to rebuild their eocnomy?? America"lost"in Vietnam because the people back home decided the price was too much to stop an ideal on the other side of the world and that conscripted armies really dont want to fight to much or too well.Leaving aside alot of strategic and political effups[.Like Johnston orderig the stopping of bombing Hanoi over Xmas when their air defence was crippled thru lack of SAM missiles and the NVG was willing to discuss a immediate truce.]
Iraq and wherever next is of a different reason ,timeframe and strategy.

War tribunals and putting war criminals therein.
You first have to be a victor to play in that court,and it is very unlikely that such will ever happen.Unless by some frweak the Islamic world invades the USA,and frankly we are talking Armageddonic type world changes then.If one Col can get away with massacaring a village in Vietnam.Will you honestly think that the world will put a president of the worlds hyper power on trial?

Careful of assuming Ireland is so stable and that US multinationals will stay here for good,despite tax breaks etc.A country only has to reach a certain point of anti Americanism,where the Execs feel unhappy being out there,and the company will close up.Hostility from the natives will make American companies leave pretty quickly,I can tell you.

If you want a good book INMHO taht still gives a very good pic as why the US isnt liked,get a copy of the ugly American. A classic.
Also anything by PJ O Rourke or Hunter S Thompson.Both have done the radleft anti everything thing,and can satarise the US and it's problems exellently.
A bow drill eh?Can you use one?
Would also include in that list of American indian technology a stream rock fish trap,and a figure 4 deadfall trap.
Be good
A10