Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
du-watch · DEPLETED URANIUM WATCH - Information and analysis about US/NATO use of Depleted Uranium
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Re: Digest Number 1462   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #7753 of 9444 |
Re: [DU-WATCH] Digest Number 1462

People, I completely disagree with this notion of ban, we do not need ban for
weapons that are already illegal. Moreover, as Davey pointed out, it is an
utterly difficult process and meanwhile, it would be useless.

So lets not waste our efforts on this, instead do other productive efforts,

Miraki,
P.S. Davey I sent you couple of emails requesting information about a fellow
in the UK


davey garland <thunderelf@...> wrote:
to me a ban seems a lot of hard work, when there is already structures in
place which have to be reinforced. the word Ban, though seems for some folk in
the movement an as easy rallying call for those who are unaware of the subject
history of the previous hard work done to make these weapons illegal. The word
ban is a long term view, and always benefits those organisations who maybe
unconsciously feel they would be redundant if their goals were actually
achieved. I'd rather not reinvent the wheel, espeically a square one!!

Bob Nichols wrote: Robert Rands

Is this actually your comment?

"DU-based dirty bombs need stopping, now. Would this not best be addressed
by a ban?"

DU weapons are already war crimes and illegal by operation of International
and
US law.

Your comment mystifies me, if you actually said it. We have all the laws
that are
needed. We lack the will.

Bob Nichols

On 7 Jul 2006 13:45:43 -0000, du-watch@yahoogroups.com <
du-watch@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> DEPLETED URANIUM WATCH - Information and analysis about US/NATO use of
> Depleted Uranium
>
> Hazmat Transport - rolling bombs <#10c493df297ced9f_1> From: R Rands
> View All Topics| Create
> New Topic
> Message 1. Hazmat Transport - rolling bombs
> Posted
> by: "R Rands" rrands@...
> dominouglias
> Thu Jul 6, 2006 6:20 pm (PST) DU-based dirty bombs need stopping, now. Would
this not best be addressed
> by a ban?
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> Hazardous-materials trucks: terror threat?
> Technology could reduce the risk by a third, but at a cost of $1.1 billion
>
> to the industry.
>
> By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
> from the July 07, 2006 edition
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






---------------------------------
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your
Internet provider.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]
Yahoo! Groups Links









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Sun Jul 9, 2006 7:20 am

mdmiraki@...
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #7753 of 9444 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

Robert Rands Is this actually your comment? "DU-based dirty bombs need stopping, now. Would this not best be addressed by a ban?" DU weapons are already war...
Bob Nichols
twrunner
Offline Send Email
Jul 7, 2006
2:55 pm

to me a ban seems a lot of hard work, when there is already structures in place which have to be reinforced. the word Ban, though seems for some folk in the...
davey garland
thunderelf
Offline Send Email
Jul 8, 2006
8:25 am

People, I completely disagree with this notion of ban, we do not need ban for weapons that are already illegal. Moreover, as Davey pointed out, it is an...
Mohammed Daud Miraki
mdmiraki@...
Send Email
Jul 9, 2006
7:27 am
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help