Did NATO go too far?

[whyguy]

Hi everybody,

I am part (temporary) of a 'Breaking News' group.
Breaking News is a two-day, multi-media project on silent disasters.
These are major global problems that almost never make the news.
We, with this project, wish to change that, and bring these disasters into the spotlight.

I have an assignment, and that assignment is to make a public debate about destructive weapons used by the NATO during the Gulf War.
In the attacks NATO used bullets with enriched uranium, a radioactive substance.
These bullets can shoot right through tanks and other armored vehicles.
The enemy is powerless and can hardly protect themselves. If the shell even touches the tank, it creates a fireball that shoots into the air. Here it spreads the radioactive substance through the air over a larger area.
If bullets instead drill into the ground, is slowly starts polluting the soil.

Millions of Iraqis were exposed to excessive radioactivity this way.
Even though the attacks were more than 10 years ago, radioactive materials do not just disappear. Measurements show in southern Iraq still show way too much radioactivity.
The bullets enriched with uranium are also used in Afghanistan, Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia and rumor in Libya.

Now, what I want to ask you is this. Does the NATO, a organisation that claims to fight for peace, have the right to use these weapons? In my opinion, they're needlessly harming innocent civillians with them, which weren't even their intended targets.

 

[Jaysfinest1]

in all honesty my friend, war is not "pretty" or ment to be civil. war is war. your taking another man's life for what he believes in. or is against. that is the evil in the world. no one can live with another human being without a problem or issue. as far as i'm concerned, there is nothing going to far anymore. things happen all the time that you will never even know about (Thank you media). so as far as i'm concerned, like my mom always taught me (RIP) is " dog eat dog world"

 

[shnen]

I've got a feeling this guy is a spambot
this sums it up anyway

 

[Livewire]

Well, ever since we've been there, rates of birth defects, cancer diagnoses, etc, have skyrocketed. Areas of the country are radioactive too. So I'm kind of inclined to believe that perhaps there's a reason for that.

 

[Kanzler]

I think you mean depleted uranium. That stuff has residual radioactivity and is a good material for armour-piercing rounds because of its density, whereas enriched uranium is something you find in a reactor. I don't think a strong armour-piercing round is going too far. It's just a sharper bullet. And I heard that they do more damage to the tank operators rather than the enemy, who usually die. I thought troopers that came back from the Gulf War ended up having birth defects in their kids, in our gene pool.