Depleted Uranium

[David Sciacchitano <ralevy@erols.com>]

The argument has nothing to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, friend.  Not a
thing.  If creating a straw man, or rather several of them, is the only
way one can justify one's position, one ought to re-examine the position,
no?

Do you really believe, and expect others to believe, that the U.S. entered
the Second World War solely " . . . to accomplish . . . global power by
means of terror."?  Isn't it a bit strong to state "The war against
Yugoslavia has nothing whatever to do with savings [sic] Albanians."?  It
doesn't?  Nothing?

Reading these exchanges (which is probably getting tiresome to many --
apologies to all) does serve to remind us of one of the reasons why much
of the world's population views environmentalists as zealots or extremists
wholly out of touch with the concerns of the rest of humanity, and why we
sometimes have difficulty communicating with those among us who may have
other concerns, like getting enough to eat, or avoiding a sudden and
gruesome death.

If DU ordnance is a bad idea, (and personally I believe it is a bad idea),
then why not argue against DU ordnance, and perhaps suggest alternatives,
or even work towards developing them?