Nick, please don't be so tough towards Europeans in general. Some of us are in favor of the pre-emptive strike.
Villain: I concur on the fact that the Soviets were responsible for blocking Hitler's eastern campaign, and I might even agree on their possibility of taking Berlin (with, as you mentioned, American-supplied technology, since their own tanks were basically WWI stuff and they did not have an equivalent to the Reich's air-to-ground bombs) without direct help from the Allies. But what you fail to consider in your argument is what would have happened to Western Europe under Soviet rule.
My country, not yours, ran the risk of being the first one in the NATO bloc with a Communist majority in parliament: right after the end of the war, there was no sure knowledge as to whether Togliatti's party would win the elections and possibly conduct Italy towards the Warsaw pact instead. Let me tell you that I'm perfectly glad it didn't, and if there were American-bred covert actions to alter the election's result as some leftist stalwarts claim I am equally glad. Had Europe been in the orbit of Moscow, probably no elections at all would have been held, and if they had been held their outcome, especially in countries with strong Communist parties like Italy at the time, would have been piloted by the Soviet regime instead.
I think that Communist rule would have done fine for me personally, since I'm a natural climber and it's the kind that sells easily in hierarchical systems. But this does not stop me from saying that Communism hurts a country's populace as a whole, as shown by the pitiful economic results of the Eastern regimes. As a scholar in income inequality, I can also tell you that USSR-bound nations and the USSR itself have not been less unequal internally than the west, at least as far as my data go which is around 1950, and Russia and the new independent states are now experiencing a resonant bout of disparity as the result of the transition as opposed to spontaneous springing of a capitalist economy.
This should put your case to rest: even with the most conservative assumption - which I don't really concur on - i.e. Americans were not instrumental in defeating Hitler (but, then again, what about Mussolini? I know he wasn't that scary, but the Fascist regime was overthrown by Italian partisans and the Angloamericans, not many Soviets on our ground. And what about the Japanese? Did Stalin bomb them or what?) -, there is still a very important and positive fallout from the American intervention against Hitler: Western Europe did not turn Communist.
Of course, I suppose that a Leninist would not consider this consequence positive: but, should you be one - or any other current in the proximities - I urge you to take a long hard look at the list of countries that tried and failed, and either move to one of the few that still didn't fail (Cuba, Laos, PRC, North Korea) and enjoy its economic and social wonders (like not being able to publish your own political newspaper or not being allowed to be homosexual) or try to provoke a likeminded revolution in your country.
This said, I did not mention England, France and Israel (or Italy) in my list of atomic powers because they do not worry me: I don't see Berlusconi trying to bomb, say, Spain anytime soon and concern is left for the s. c. "rogue states".
I already said that getting rid of Saddam while supporting the Saudis is a tad worrying, and I am by no means saying that this particular operation ("Operation Desert Vacuum"?
) has been conceived in the most perfect of manners, also because I have no idea of the details and I don't even think mr. Rumsfeld knows them at the moment - they simply are not there.
Finally, let me tell you that bleeding-heart liberals normally tend to wreck havoc in their personal lives besides not understanding political imperatives. Please abstain from such behavior now. And if you think I am insulting you, double-check before calling "ignorant" people you do not know.
hyena
) I may have the time to find some sources for you to inspect in this weekend.
) But I would call myself well-versed in biochemistry, and, as it pertains here, chemistry as well. While the sites you list do strongly make their case about DU's toxicity, I still am bothered by the lack of longterm studies of DU's effects. DU is 0.6 - 0.7 times as radioactive as natural occurring Uranium, which is about as abundant in the earth as tin (2 parts per million). Given, this is naturally occuring Uranium....Anyways, I don't have the time to do proper research into it, but in the time I had I found this link 
