Exclusive: US to send depleted-uranium munitions to Ukraine - eviltoast

The use of depleted uranium munitions has been fiercely debated, with opponents like the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons saying there are dangerous health risks from ingesting or inhaling depleted uranium dust, including cancers and birth defects.

    • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      And what, let the Russians steamroll Ukraine and take everything? Let them destroy a fledgling democracy? Right on the EU’s and NATO’s doorstep? Come on.

      • Kuori [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        84
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        fledgling democracy

        lmao are you fucking kidding

        and shit while we’re at it, what the fuck do you think NATO has been doing its entire existence? it’s been destroying -actual- fledgling democracies, you monstrously hypocritical ass

      • fuckiforgotmypasswor [comrade/them,any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        68
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        let the Russians steamroll Ukraine and take everything?

        I’ve noticed that every pro-NATO voice screaming “war good” has to pretend like the binary outcome of this war is a) Ukraine becomes Russia and every living inhabitant is genocided (see above comment from bibibi for case in point), or b) Ukraine heroically drives back Russia with magic in a completely asymmetrical and unwinnable war

        Come on.

        And then finishes their comment with something like this

        There’s no material analysis to support any of this

        The only way to get to that viewpoint is to believe Putin is an irrational, genocidal maniac hellbent on killing checks notes neighbors who are ethnically russian, who also desperately wants to push even more of Russia’s border right up against a hostile NATO. It’s no surprise that the people saying this shit are pro NATO and don’t understand the material reality underlying geopolitical conflicts like this one

        Not gonna touch the “fledgeling democracy” thing, other comrades can dunk on that chefs-kiss

        • bibibi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago
          1. “ethnical russian” - what is that?

          2. russian imperialism is a thing. People there are brainwashed with russia’s greatness ideas and expansion. putin’s actions just represent the will of russians.

          3. The fact we were attacked and lost that many people is already a defeat. We lost this war when gave up nukes under the push of the west and russia. this together with naivness of our post-soviet people defined the path of our degradation. But it neither a win for russia, and won’t be. Russia was always corrupted just like Ukraine, it just got more resources and nukes, but that’s it. without the above fact and support of the west, maybe we would not be able to suppress them

          • fuckiforgotmypasswor [comrade/them,any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            russian imperialism is a thing

            i just can’t anymore, the cognitive dissonance is fucking astounding, yall can deal with the libs in this thread

            im just gonna let people like this LIB continue to suck off the western imperialists sending radiated shells to his neighborhood, slava ukrani buddy

          • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh man I still remember the post that was leaked from russian government webpage on the 25th, a day after russian invaded. It was an absolute hard on about russian imperialism and how they will restore the good old russian empire or something, which included most slavic countries btw. It was taken down in hours but I checked that the addess was correct and legit. No proof of it since it’s been a year already and I saved nothing, so if you don’t believe it ignore me and please don’t spread this since I have no source anymore, but damn if it doesn’t paint a clear picture of russia’s intent on all of this since way before.

            • Zrc [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              this damning evidence of Russia’s intentions would surely have motivated more countries to send aid to Ukraine. Why didn’t you take a screenshot?? you realize that you’re directly responsible for the deaths of thousand of Ukrainians, right???

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The real alternative is for Russians to go home. Who the fuck cares who’s using them? They’re being invaded. Russia didn’t need to invade them, but they thought they could get away with it (again). This isnt the first invasion of a sovereign country Russia has done. It isn’t even the first invasion of Ukraine. The US didn’t get involved in the others. Are we just going to excuse those?

      • Aryuproudomenowdaddy [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Have you ever played 4x games? Do you know what encirclement is? When an opponent is ringing your territory with bases while they keep telling you it’s totally cool bro, they’re just working on their defenses while making alliances with players adjacent to you, what do you consider is their end game?

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, everyone Russia has invaded has been for defence. Sure buddy. The real world is more complex than a 4X game, but even then you can use that to understand why someone would invade another country. They wanted to steal the resources and population. You may use your statement as a justification, but it is never the actual reason. The excuse of it being defensive is rediculous. Yeah, invading a sovereign country (multiple times) is sure to make the alliance “encircling” you stop. Seriously? Do you believe that rhetoric or are you just saying it because you’re supposed to?

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know why people keep repeating this. Do you honestly think this is a coherent point? Russia is obviously not going to go home no matter how many times you’re going to repeat it. It’s a meaningless and useless statement that literally solves nothing. Either NATO can defeat Russia or not, so far it looks like NATO is not able to do so. What NATO is accomplishing is prolonging the conflict without changing the outcome. That means more people dying and having their lives ruined so that US military industry can make a profit and so that US can try and weaken Russia geopolitically. Anybody who thinks the west is in this conflict to help Ukraine is an utter imbecile.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Should the US have sent supplies to the allies in WWI and WWII before joining? It was just prolonging the war and causing people to die, right?

          The reason the US is doing it is not morality. Everyone knows that. International politics is never about morality, it’s about power. However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t also the moral option.

          Also, NATO and the US are not in the war. We’re sending supplies. The US isn’t even sending the good stuff. We’re sending parts of our stockpile that’s old and has just been sitting around waiting for a use. They haven’t sent the newer technology so it it isn’t studied in case a real enemy requires them to be used.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            It takes an incredible amount of historical illiteracy to try and draw parallels between WW2 and the proxy war US is waging against Russia in Ukraine. However, if you weren’t historically illiterate, then you’d also know that US companies continued working with the nazis well into the war, and IBM is famously responsible for facilitating the holocaust.

            Also, NATO and the US are very obviously in this war, and one has to be utterly intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.

          • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The yanks were funding the WWII Nazis before they ‘sent supplies to the allies’.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              More What-aboutism to dodge answering the question. That’s expected, and it’s about as good as an answer to me and anyone paying attention.

              • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You brought up the example of the US in relation to WWII. If you make a comparison, you can’t get stroppy when people point out that it contradicts your main argument and in fact supports the argument that you’re trying to challenge.

                However, for as long as you think the US is the Good GuyTM, you’re going to struggle to find examples that support your viewpoint, so you may want to be careful with any comparison. Otherwise, you’ll start to notice a pattern of them pointing out that the US was as monstrous as always in the cited example and then you’ll say they’re doing whataboutism ad infinitum.

                • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It doesn’t contradict my example. Companies are not the government.

                  I don’t think the US are “the good guys.” There aren’t good guys in international politics. They don’t do things for moral reasons. I do think the invaders are bad, whichever war were talking about. The US happens to be giving supplies to the people fighting off an invasion now and in WWI and WWII.

                  You still didn’t answer the god damn question. Again, expected. You guys never answer the fucking question. You just go on offense because then you get to act smart and in control, but it makes you look weak and stupid. If you can’t answer a simple question then what good is your opinion?

                  • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    The reason it seems like I’m dodging the question is because if I can challenge the assumptions in the question and show that it’s a faulty question, the answer becomes irrelevant. Still, if you keep reading, you’ll see that I have provided an answer below.

                    As for my opinion, it’s like anyone else’s. It isn’t worth much. My statements of fact, however… in a world where people try to paint the US in a positive light, endlessly making distinctions to deny any blame to the US state for all the horror that it unleashes on the world… probably also not worth much.

                    I either make a logical argument that stands up to scrutiny or I don’t. If my argument stands up, it doesn’t matter whether I look like a weak idiot. If my argument fails, it doesn’t matter if I pretend control or to appear smart or to act it.

                    For a bourgeois state, it is ahistorical to separate the government from it’s businesses. Companies and the government go hand in hand. It was, for example, the East India Company, rather than the British ‘state’, that colonised so much of Asia.

                    In relation to WWII and the US-Nazi connection, Michael Parenti wrote in Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism (City Lights Books, CA, 1997, p17):

                    Corporations like DuPont, Ford, General Motors, and ITT owned factories in enemy countries that produced fuel, tanks, and planes that wreaked havoc on Allied forces. After the war, instead of being prosecuted for treason, ITT collected $27 million from the U.S. government for war damages inflicted on its German plants by allied bombings. General Motors collected over $33 million. Pilots were given instructions not to hit factories in Germany that were owned by U.S. firms. Thus Cologne was almost levelled by Allied bombing but it’s Ford plant, providing military equipment for the Nazi army, was untouched; indeed German civilians began using the plant as an air raid shelter. [Citing Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy (Dell, NY, 1983).]

                    Fn14: After the war, Herman Abs, head of the Deutsche Bank and in effect “Hitler’s paymaster,” was hailed by David Rockefeller as “the most important banker of our time.” … Rockefeller [failed to say] a word about Abs’ Nazi connections, his bank’s predatory incursions across Nazi occupied Europe, and his participation, as a board member of I.G. Farben, in the use of slave labor at Auschwitz: Robert Karl Miller, Portland Free Press, Sept/Oct 1994

                    All this, and we haven’t really touched on:

                    • the way that US state officials intervened to—
                      • protect Nazi war criminals from prosecution at Nuremberg,
                      • rehabilitate and promote Nazi officials to lead NATO,
                      • doing the all this with Mussolini and others,
                    • how the US ruling class platformed Nazis in the US press and silenced critical domestic voices,
                    • the relationship between the US government and its ruling bourgeois, the familial relations.

                    The US is to be applauded for is role in defeating the Nazi war machine, including supplying the allies. The US soldiers who fought the Nazis were heroes. But it is problematic to claim the US (i.e. it’s ruling class) was on the right side of history through that period.

                    Likewise, in Ukraine, the US worsened the whole mess, possibly caused it all, by meddling in the region since before the 90’s. Since the recent invasion US media and spokespersons have been nonchalantly saying the US has reaped many benefits from the war with very little cost (except for Ukrainians—added in parentheses, as if the Ukrainians are of secondary concern).

                    I do think the invaders are bad, whichever war were talking about.

                    I think we agree in principle and I think I know what you mean but I must raise a challenge. There’s an example that shows an invasion is not necessarily bad, the one that you pointed out: the Allies invading Nazi Germany.

                    If invasion is not bad in one example situation, then logically it doesn’t hold as a blanket statement. It cannot of itself lead us to conclude that Russia is bad for invading Ukraine. To be clear, I am not saying Russia is good for invading Ukraine; I’m saying it is not self evidently bad by virtue of being the invader.

                    To further the clear statement, I wish Russia had not invaded. I wish the war would end today. Short of that I wish a ceasefire could be negotiated for today, so that peace and an end to the war can be negotiated for the near future.

                    No flippant comments about how dangerous war is for the workers who must fight in it. Only firm conviction that the only right choice is to stop the killing and maiming as soon as possible, not to send increasingly dangerous weapons with increasingly higher chances of causing collateral damage.

                    Unfortunately for Ukraine, the US wanted the opposite at all stages and it’s representatives (officials and corporate agents) have machinated to ensure that war broke out and now that it cannot stop.

    • bibibi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago
      1. if Ukraine lose completely most of ukrainans living in Ukraine simply get extriminated or forcely assimilated.
      2. Russia started the war when invided Ukraine in 2014. not sure where the “using” is.
        • bibibi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          tell me what’s right. I’m ukrainian living in Ukraine. but please, your bs about дамбілі бамбас won’t work

          btw Im not happy with NATO neither with western history. I just know personally what russian imperialistic shit looks like

                • bibibi@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  not clear at all. no mention about ww2 in his comment. moreover we did not talk about ww2 before, so this is most likely a watabolistic attempt justifying killing ukrainians because some of our ancestors were participating in pogroms of jews.

                  if we were talking about xx and previous centuries, then I would also mention crimes done by russians, poles and germans toward ukrainians

                  Regarding antisemitism, I would also mention that pogroms in the russian empire especially in places jews were allowed to live in (see the Pale of Settlement) and in europe were common.

                  Collaborants were everywhere in europe, america and russia. Regarding latter, see nazi-soviet parade in Brest-Litovsk as an example. But for some reason you only mentrion ukrainians and Bandera.

                  • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Yes we are talking about Ukraine right now which is why Ukraine is coming up a lot

                    as I understand their point they were saying that as Ukrainian nationalists tried to kill their family they are not especially sympathetic to the cause of Ukrainian nationalism. I may be wrong of course but that is what I interpreted their statement as meaning