The Sweet Liberty site has been getting a lot of traffic from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.
Now, what do you suppose the IAEA would find of interest on our site?
One thing they might not like is the little item I just posted a day or two ago on how devastating depleted uranium is on our troops.
According to the article, Depleted Uranium: Dirty Bombs, Dirty Missiles, Dirty Bullets, over half of the soldiers serving in the first war in the Gulf have health problems.
In simple words, DU "trashes the body." When asked if the main purpose for using it was for destroying things and killing people, Fulk was more specific: "I would say that it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people."The article then goes on to explain how soldiers came home and spread it to their wives and post-war conceived children.
Soldiers developing malignancies so quickly since 2003 can be expected to develop multiple cancers from independent causes. This phenomenon has been reported by doctors in hospitals treating civilians following NATO bombing with DU in Yugoslavia in 1998-1999 and the U.S. military invasion of Iraq using DU for the first time in 1991. Medical experts report that this phenomenon of multiple malignancies from unrelated causes has been unknown until now and is a new syndrome associated with internal DU exposure.
Just 467 U.S. personnel were wounded in the three-week Persian Gulf War in 1990-1991. Out of 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are dead, and by 2000 there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability. This astounding number of disabled vets means that a decade later, 56 percent of those soldiers who served now have medical problems.
This is a major story that is being completely ignored by the CONtrolled press.
But then, should we be surprised?
If the International Atomic Energy Agency were really that concerned about weapons of mass destruction, then why the hell are they ignoring the United States use of depleted uranium in Iraq and other countries?
Don't bother answering. The question was only rhetorical.
No comments:
Post a Comment