StarGateWars Forums

i'm sickened by this, its morally wrong and absolutely uncalled for.

i cannot envision an enemy so evil that using weapons containing depleted uranium would even be warranted.
you cant just use these weapons on any enemy because sooner or later, that enemy will be defeated and the country will have to be rebuilt. even if we was up against another Hitler/Nazi regime, it would still be uncalled for because the people most likely to suffer are the civilians, due to contamination of the land and water table, to say nothing about the mess it creates and havoc it will cause the indigenous civilians with disease.

these weapons should be outlawed and war crimes brought against any Govt and top level military personnel that authorises their use.

The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium, and the Dying Children
[spoiler]53:02 - 2 years ago
An award winning documentary film produced for German television by Freider Wagner and Valentin Thurn. The film exposes the use and impact of radioactive weapons during the current war against Iraq. The story is told by citizens of many nations. It opens with comments by two British veterans, Kenny Duncan and Jenny Moore, describing their exposure to radioactive, so-called depleted uranium (DU), weapons and the congenital abnormalities of their children. Dr. Siegwart-Horst Gunther, a former colleague of Albert Schweitzer, and Tedd Weyman of the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) traveled to Iraq, from Germany and Canada respectively, to assess uranium contamination in Iraq.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 681767408#[/spoiler]


http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=deplet ... f81deca7ef

anyways, that's my opinion, what's yours?

We have a thread on morality.

This thread assumes that we even agree on what it is.

And certainly, with the definition I gave it, the question remains: what assumptions are you resting upon to conclude that it's morally wrong?

I wouldn't be nitty picky if the topic weren't about the MORALITY of using depleted uranium in weapons... ;p

Surely, if we assume that it is inherently immoral to harm individuals who were never willingly a part of a given conflict, then sure, your point stands as long as the assumption is made. But then we have just made a statement. What is there left to discuss?

We could discuss why those assumptions may stand. We could ask ourselves if there is an alternative, but in a world of possibilities, the answer to that is obvious. There are always alternatives.

What, then, is your question? Why others do not share your view of morality? They are making different assumptions. Why are they making different assumptions? Because of the nature of assumptions: they are not logically supported and so they, in their turn, make for poor support for any other logical assertion.


Agapooka

WOW! what a way to really confuse the issue


we are not discussing "morality" or morals, what the thread is about is the right and wrong of basically killing civilians (either directly or indirectly) by dumping our spent nuclear waste on THEIR land.


any comments on that train of thought, or do you intend to carry on with your mind/topic bending??



PS. no offence is intended.

I think what agapooka means is that until you define "right" and "wrong", you can't really apply this terms to any situation.

has everyone's senses taken leave?

you mean to tell me you guys dont know the difference of right and wrong, or are you saying you need me to tell you what is right and what is wrong???

edit.

i've just asked my 12 year old son if dropping bombs made of nuclear waste is a good thing or bad, and he said "its bad dad, any fool can tell you that!", and that's when he ran upstairs to play on the wii.

I think what they are saying is, the one persons definition of 'right' can be completely different to another persons.

why does everyone feel the need to over-complicate the matter?!

seriously, i'm confused, i always believed that no matter what type of person you are (so long as you are normal and dont have some kind of mental condition), EVERYONE has a basic idea of right and wrong, good and bad...man was i wrong!

waging war against a corrupt state is a (for lack of a better word) "good" thing, while dropping bombs made of waste nuclear material is hazardous and dangerous. hazardous for our own troops and civilian populations who are unfortunate to have nuclear waste dumped on their land, and dangerous for the environment.



is there still confusion about what i'm saying? because seriously, i dont know how to make it any simpler!

Removed

I think you are confused, Avenger.

Topic title wrote:the morality qustion of depleted uranium in weapons.

Avenger wrote:we are not discussing "morality" or morals

Avenger wrote:what the thread is about is the right and wrong

dictionary entry for morality wrote:concerns the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct

You are asking about whether or not it is moral, so it logically follows that one might want to ask why. Instead, when one wants to know why, they no longer have common sense. I suppose it's better not to ask questions.

And it's much better to contradict oneself a few times per paragraph.

Is this thread about morality or not? I care not that a twelve year old intuitively has a certain sense of morality. Fine. So do I. Does that mean that I know why? Not necessarily. The question is completely relevant, especially since we are going to identify whether or not something is moral.

Otherwise, all we are going to have is opinion diarrhea.

"I think it's never ok to kill."
"It's ok if it's for a good cause."
"What's a good cause?"
"To feed myself."
"No, that's selfish."
"What about dying for your country?"
"What if the country does not have a good reason to go to war?"
"The government is always right. It IS morality."
"It is immoral to accept something as true without first analysing and understanding why it is thus."
"It is immoral to question things."

Opinions don't lead anywhere. This is why it is important to answer relevant questions, instead of crying about how asking them points to a supposed lack of common sense. Where else did you expect to go with this thread? Did you expect something like the following?

"It is immoral to dump depleted uranium in someone else's country."
"Yes, I would not like that to happen to me."
"Ah, but what if they were mean?"
"What could someone do to deserve that?"
"The trees would be harmed. The trees didn't do anything wrong!"
"Ah, but you are assuming that one's wrongdoing can justify violence towards him."
"Are you assuming that it cannot?"
"Oh no. We have reached a standstill, as neither of us can prove our respective opinions."
"You are right. Let us dance instead and remember how bad it is that this is happening."
"It is very bad."
"I agree."


Agapooka

Removed

Indeed.

The military's only use of morality is as a fake justification for its actions.

Morality would otherwise only hamper a workforce whose prime ability is to harm others.

Monty Python's Meaning of Life wrote:Better than staying at home, eh sir! At
home if you kill someone they arrest you. Here they give you
a gun, and show you what to do, sir. I mean, I killed fifteen
of those buggers sir! Now at home they'd hang me. *Here* they
give me a f****** medal sir!

Kit-Fox wrote:It has nothing to do with morality at all, mearly effectiveness & saving as many of your grunts as possible so you can remain as combat - ready/effective for as long as possible for any given engagement.

really? these "grunts" as you say, are also on the receiving end of these weapons (see gulf war syndrome), so what good are they if they indiscriminately harm everyone and everything?

and before you say "they" care about our "grunts", think again, they couldn't careless about our "grunts":

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&ei=cExQS ... f81deca7ef



@pookie. i just wanted to have a sensible discussion regarding the use of these weapons, not a full discussion regarding the definition and use of words.
i see the whole war on terror as not only unjust, illegal and wrong, but i also see it as morally wrong.
just because you define "morality" and "good/bad" differently to what i do doesn't detract from the evil of these weapons.


lets look at the situation and see if we can define the use of the word "morality" in my opening post...


are we facing an enemy who has superior weapons/equipment than we do, or even close to matching us in weapons technology?! no.

are we facing an enemy so evil they want to rule the world?! no.

are we facing an enemy whose sole intention is wipe everyone out who has a differing opinion about how we should live and wants to convert all of us?! no.

are they killing babies?! no.

are they imprisoning, torturing and killing millions like the Nazis and Communists did?! no.




so where is the justification for these weapons?

if we was up against a sophisticated enemy whose just developed a new type of armour which conventional missiles couldn't penetrate and we was losing as a result, i could understand this as ample justification for there use, but that isn't the case here.


there is no justification for the use of such weapons on an enemy who cannot defend themselves from standard weapons, let alone "dirty" weapons. so the use of the word "morality", is justified in my opening post...IMHO.
i'm sorry if you dont share that opinion, or if you dont see something that a 12 year old has no trouble seeing.
try watching the film whose link i posted in the spoiler of my OP. its not long and see if you agree with me even in the slightest about these weapons.



i would also like to get off the subject about how you and i define "morality".
i also cede that you have a greater vocabulary than me and can structure your arguments better than i can, however, there is such a thing as "to clever", you know what i'm getting at with my opening post

Removed

avenger I think the point they`re trying to make is that as long as the stuff isnt fired on their back lawn but somewhere overseas, tis all good.

Plus you did word it a bit akwardly.

IMO the only difference between a dirty bomb and DU shells is the penetration value. If I were mean I`d wish them a suitcase of ths stuff over in "homeland", if nothing to lolz at the ensuing health risk panic, but I aint. I`ll just sight at the lack of humanity lol.

Removed